High-Performance File System MCP Server

search_files

Find files in a directory using glob patterns. Provide a base directory and pattern to identify matching files.

Instructions

Search for files within a directory matching a glob pattern.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "directory": "<directory>",
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pattern`	Yes	Glob pattern to match files (e.g. '*/.ts', '*.txt')
`directory`	Yes	Base directory to search within

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 only states the basic operation (search by glob pattern) without mentioning return format, recursion behavior, error handling, or whether the search is read-only. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Search for files') and then specifies the resource and criteria. Every word contributes to clarity, with no superfluous content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching file paths) and clarify whether the search is recursive. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer key usage details.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (directory, pattern) with an example for pattern. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'search' with a clear resource ('files within a directory') and criteria ('matching a glob pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, write_file, and list_directory, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs to locate files by pattern, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_directory (for listing entries) or read_file (for reading content). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server