Search for string or regex patterns in a file. Specify file path and pattern to find matching lines with context and match limits.
Search pattern in file. Regex supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Relative path (also accepts file_path) | |
| pattern | Yes | Pattern (string/regex) | |
| file_path | No | Alias for file | |
| max_matches | No | Max matches (default: 50) | |
| context_lines | No | Context lines (default: 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses regex support, which is already implied by the schema's 'string/regex' parameter description. It does not mention return value format, pagination, or behaviors like line numbers or file path handling.
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?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. However, it is so minimal that it omits useful context, making it efficient but slightly under-specified for a tool with no annotations.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the search result looks like, how to interpret matches, or how this tool relates to the many search-related siblings. An agent would need to inspect the schema extensively to use it correctly.
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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search pattern in file', and notes regex support. It is clear and distinguishes itself from project-level search tools in scope, though it does not name sibling alternatives.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_in_project or search_symbol. The file-scoped behavior is implied but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.