Skip to main content
Glama
MathiasDrizzy

lazymark

by MathiasDrizzy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

search_notes

Search all Markdown notes for text and return each match with note, line, and context. Supports regex, case-sensitive search, and result limits.

Instructions

Searches text in all the notes (case-insensitive). Returns the note, line and context of each match, ordered by note and line.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of matches (default 500).
queryYesThe text to search for, or a regular expression if regex is true.
regexNoIf true, query is a regular expression (RE2).
case_sensitiveNoIf true, the search is case-sensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.9.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / case_sensitive / description
      Previous value: -"Si es true, distingue mayúsculas de minúsculas."New value: +"If true, the search is case-sensitive."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Máximo de coincidencias (por defecto 500)."New value: +"Maximum number of matches (default 500)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"El texto a buscar, o una expresión regular si regex es true."New value: +"The text to search for, or a regular expression if regex is true."
    • changedInput schema / properties / regex / description
      Previous value: -"Si es true, query es una expresión regular (RE2)."New value: +"If true, query is a regular expression (RE2)."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states the default case-insensitive behavior, the ordering ('by note and line'), and the per-match payload, but says nothing about result limits beyond the schema, no-match behavior, or permissions. Reasonable for a read-only search, but incomplete.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; scope and case behavior are front-loaded, and the return shape and ordering land in the second sentence without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (note, line, context) and their ordering. For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, that is nearly enough; only no-match and result-volume behavior are unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including query, regex, case_sensitive, and limit are already documented. The description's 'case-insensitive' remark reinforces rather than extends the schema, and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Searches text in all the notes') plus a clear scope ('all the notes'), which implicitly separates it from read_note and list_notes. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'in all the notes' suggests this is the cross-note lookup versus read_note's single-note retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Mid-tier guidance.

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