reanim_search_featuresFind features in reanim.luau by case-insensitive keyword search and return matching lines with line numbers. Set a result limit to narrow large matches.
Case-insensitive search over reanim.luau (~14MB) mimicking the V16 search bar. Returns up to N matching lines with line numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search text, e.g. Fling Method, WalkSpeed, Server Hop, Anti Lag |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: case-insensitive matching, the ~14MB source scope, and that results are matching lines with line numbers, which tells the agent what a call yields.
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?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, with the return-format detail appended. No filler or 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (matching lines with line numbers) and the search scope. It is nearly complete for a simple search tool, lacking only notes on pagination or query syntax (e.g. whether regex/wildcards are supported).
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 coverage is only 50% — the query param is documented in the schema, but limit is not. The description clarifies that 'N matching lines' corresponds to the limit parameter, partially compensating, but it omits the default (15) and max (50) bounds that shape the request.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (features in reanim.luau), plus the search semantics (case-insensitive). It is the only search tool among the siblings, so no sibling differentiation is needed, but it never names the resource as 'reanimator features' explicitly.
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?
'Mimicking the V16 search bar' implies the intended usage of finding features by keyword, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool for related lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.