Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
StepanCooleague

file-finder-mcp

by StepanCooleague
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ファイルファインダー-mcp MCP サーバー

パスフラグメントに基づいてファイルシステム内のファイルを検索するための MCP サーバー。

コンポーネント

リソース

サーバーはファイル検索システムを実装します。

  • 各ファイル リソースには次のものが含まれます。

    • ファイル名

    • フルパス

    • ファイルサイズ

    • 作成日

ツール

サーバーは次のツールを 1 つ提供します。

  • search-files : 指定されたパスフラグメントに一致するファイルを検索します。

    • query必須の文字列引数として受け取ります。

    • オプションの文字列directoryとして、検索のベースディレクトリを指定します。指定しない場合は、ルートディレクトリで検索が実行されます。

    • 一致するファイルとそのメタデータのリストを返します。

Related MCP server: Find Library MCP Server

クイックスタート

インストール

cline_mcp_settings.jsonファイルの内容を次の構成に置き換えます。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "file-finder-mcp": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "/Users/stleubaev/Desktop/ClineTest/file-finder-mcp",
        "run",
        "file-finder-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

テスト

テストは、次のプロンプトを使用して Gemini モデルを使用して実施されました。

hi can you find files called file_to_find on my desktop using my mcp server

Available Tools

1 tool
search-filesC

Поиск файлов по фрагменту пути

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesФрагмент пути для поиска
directoryNoКаталог для поиска/

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 what the tool does (searching) but lacks critical details such as search scope (e.g., recursive vs. shallow), performance implications, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured by including key behavioral details to improve clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address important contextual aspects like what the search returns (e.g., file paths, metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., case sensitivity, supported file systems). This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Поиск файлов по фрагменту пути' clearly states the purpose: searching files by path fragment. It specifies the verb (search) and resource (files), but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which is required for a score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. It merely restates the basic functionality without contextual usage instructions, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedsearch-files
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'search-files' has a clear and distinct purpose, so agents cannot misselect between non-existent alternatives.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'search-files' follows a verb_noun pattern, but consistency cannot be assessed across a set of one.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for most server purposes, as it severely limits functionality and scope. For a 'file-finder' server, one might expect additional tools like list directories, filter by type, or get file metadata, making this feel incomplete and thin.

Completeness2/5

The server's domain appears to be file searching, but with only a search tool, there are significant gaps. For example, no tools exist to navigate directories, retrieve file details, or handle errors, which could lead to agent failures in broader file-related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Find Library MCP Server

    izyuumi
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables searching for specific files by name within the current directory and its subdirectories. It uses Server-Sent Events (SSE) to provide a find_file tool for locating local files and libraries.
    -

  • File Search Tool

    RJTPP
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables file system search and inspection, including directory listing, regex-based file name and content searches, and reading text, PDF, and DOCX files.
    1
    MIT

  • emcp

    slezica
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server providing filesystem operations, shell execution, and web search capabilities.
    -

Appeared in Searches