Search literal text in PLC project files to return file paths, line numbers, and context for each match, while explicitly flagging LD or protected blocks not covered by the search.
搜索已登记 IL 的字面文本，返回文件、行号和上下文；明确未覆盖的 LD/保护块。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最多返回的匹配行，默认 200 | |
| query | Yes | 查找的字面文本，不是正则表达式 | |
| context | No | 每侧上下文行数，默认 2 | |
| project | Yes | 含唯一 HCP 索引的完整工程目录 | |
| case_sensitive | No | 是否区分大小写，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (literal text, not regex implied by 'literal') and a key limitation (LD/protected blocks), and states output includes file, line, and context. However, it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, leaving some safety profile implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the main action front-loaded and the exclusion clause appended compactly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, output (file/line/context), and scope limitation (LD/protected). It lacks a precise return schema, but the stated output elements are sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond restating 'literal text', which is already in the query parameter description. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as searching literal text within registered IL and returning file, line numbers, and context. It explicitly states that LD/protected blocks are not covered, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like il_read or project_xref without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an exclusion (LD/protected blocks not covered), which implies when not to use it, but it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use guidance. Usage context is largely implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.