Find matching text across DSL-resolved entities in a local repository, with optional entity type filtering.
Search text in all or one type of local DSL-resolved entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| entity_name | No | ||
| case_sensitive | No | ||
| repository_path | Yes | ||
| declaration_path | No | architecture.yaml |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'search' but does not state that the operation is read-only, how matching works, what the result set contains, or how repository_path and declaration_path scope the search. This is minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.
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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the intended meaning.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'DSL-resolved entity' means, how the query is matched, what entity_name values are valid, or how the path parameters affect the search. The output schema helps with return values, but input semantics remain incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at query ('search text') and entity_name ('all or one type'), but repository_path, declaration_path, and case_sensitive are effectively undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description provides only partial compensation for the missing parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('text in local DSL-resolved entity'), and 'all or one type' captures the main variation in scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is clearly distinct from listing, reading, or creating entities.
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 this is the tool to use when an agent needs to find entities by text rather than enumerate them with entity_list or read one with entity_read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite context, or statement about when this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.