Search Perchance generator source with regex across model or output panes. Returns matching lines with optional context lines.
Regex search across one pane (or both if pane omitted). Returns matching lines with optional context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pane | No | Omit to search both | |
| limit | No | Max matches returned. Default 200 | |
| pattern | Yes | JS regex pattern | |
| contextLines | No | Lines of context around each hit. Default 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format ('matching lines with optional context') and 'search' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect absence, permissions, or performance characteristics.
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 sentences with no wasted words; the core operation and return behavior are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values; it does so briefly by stating matching lines with optional context. The schema covers parameter details, but the description could mention result limits or line numbering for fuller completeness.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes the pane-omission behavior and optional context, adding no format, syntax, or default details 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 (Regex search) and resource (pane), with scope covering one or both panes. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic read or edit tools, but it does not name or contrast with sibling tools such as perch_read or perch_outline.
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 gives a usage condition for the pane parameter ('or both if pane omitted'), which implies when to omit it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like perch_read or perch_outline, leaving selection mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.