Search captured Codex conversation messages and summaries by lexical terms or substrings, returning snippet results with session and summary references.
FTS5 lexical search with literal substring fallback across messages and summaries. Returns snippets with session and summary references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default and maximum 10). | |
| query | Yes | Search terms. | |
| session_id | No | Optional session to restrict search to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the search mechanism (FTS5 with literal substring fallback) and return shape (snippets with session/summary references), but it omits ranking behavior, case/substring semantics, ordering, and confirmation that the operation is read-only.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core mechanism, scope, and return format are front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 low-complexity three-parameter search tool, it covers what is searched and what is returned adequately. However, the absence of annotations and lack of sibling-routing guidance leave the agent without enough context to confidently choose lcm_grep over lcm_recall or lcm_recent.
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 defines query, limit, and session_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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: lexical search across messages and summaries, with deterministic fallback. It is clearly a search tool and distinguishable from siblings like lcm_recent and lcm_expand, though it does not explicitly contrast with lcm_recall.
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 FTS5 lexical search framing implies a keyword/exactish search use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives such as semantic recall or recent-message listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.