Search all Power Query M queries for a pattern, filtering by code, strings, comments, or all scopes. Get the query, step, and line for every match to locate and fix issues.
Search the M of every query. scope: all | code | strings | comments. Returns query, step and line for each hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regex | No | ||
| scope | No | all | |
| source | Yes | ||
| pattern | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description adds useful return details (query, step, line). It does not mention behavior like case sensitivity or regex handling, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.
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 concise, two sentences with no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. It could include more detail but remains efficiently structured.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should fully explain return and parameter semantics. It covers return values partially and only one of four parameters, making it incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters, but it only clarifies 'scope' and its allowed values. It fails to define 'source', 'pattern', and 'regex', leaving the agent without enough information to construct correct inputs.
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 clear search operation ('Search the M of every query') and specifies the scope options, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like replace_in_queries. However, 'M' is undefined and may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain, slightly detracting from clarity.
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 description implies a search use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replace_in_queries or get_query. It lists scope options but does not explain when each scope is appropriate or exclude any scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.