Find text or file names in a directory. Content mode returns line/column matches; name mode returns file paths.
Fast local search powered by ripgrep. mode=content searches text with line/column output; mode=name searches file paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| glob | No | ||
| mode | No | content | |
| path | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| literal | No | ||
| ignoreCase | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| includeHidden | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context (ripgrep-backed, local, and the output format for content mode), but it omits behavioral details like the ignoreCase=true and includeHidden=false defaults or maxResults capping that affect result sets.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool, then the mode distinction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin — six parameters are unexplained and there is no statement of return shape, result ordering, or result-limit behavior.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only the mode enum (content vs name); glob, literal, ignoreCase, maxResults, and includeHidden are left with no explanation of their semantics or defaults.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('local search') and its engine (ripgrep), and it disambiguates the two operating modes with their output shapes (line/column vs file paths). It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings like fs_list, fs_read, or exec, which an agent must still infer.
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?
It explains what each mode does but never says when to use this tool rather than fs_list, fs_read, or exec, nor any prerequisite such as the path needing to exist. With 13 siblings, no routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.