Search file contents using regex patterns. Filter by directory and file include patterns to locate specific lines of code or text.
Search file contents using regex pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory to search in | |
| include | No | File pattern to include | |
| pattern | Yes | Regex pattern to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search file contents,' omitting whether results are file paths or matching lines, whether the search is recursive, or whether any limits apply. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids filler, though it is slightly terse and could benefit from a clarifying detail about output or scope.
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?
Given the overlap with search_files, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, this minimal description is not fully complete. It leaves uncertainty about path defaults, include patterns semantics, recursion, and return format, which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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 documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, except aligning the regex pattern with the purpose, which is sufficient for a baseline score.
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 ('search') and resource ('file contents') using a regex pattern, which clearly conveys the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish grep_content from the sibling search_files, but the purpose itself is identifiable.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_files or list_files. The description neither states preferred use cases nor excludes cases where another sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.