Skip to main content
Glama

Search Files

search_files

Locate files under a path by filename glob or literal content substring, capping matches and optionally including hidden files.

Instructions

Search files under a path by name glob and/or literal content.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
max_resultsNocap on matches
name_patternNofnmatch glob like '*.log' or 'config*'
include_hiddenNodescend into dotfiles
content_patternNoliteral substring to find in file contents

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that content matching is a literal substring (not regex), but says nothing about recursion depth, symlink/binary handling, permission errors, or the cost of full-content scans.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though borderline too terse given the tool's five parameters and content-scanning behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the schema covers most parameters. However, for a search tool with no annotations, the description omits recursion scope and traversal caveats that an agent would need to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains max_results, name_pattern glob syntax, include_hidden, and content_pattern. The description only reinforces that the name filter is a glob and the content filter is literal, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (files) plus the two filtering modes (name glob and/or literal content), which lets an agent distinguish it from listing tools like list_log_files. It does not explicitly differentiate from package_search or package_files, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as package_search, and no note about cost differences between name-only and content searches. The only hint is 'and/or', implying filters can be combined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools