Find saved paths in a versioned workspace using glob patterns, with pagination to retrieve matches in controlled batches.
Find saved paths using a glob pattern, with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| pagePos | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that: results are paginated, meaning matches can be truncated and more than one call may be needed. Nothing about errors, glob syntax support, or ordering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the core mechanism stated immediately. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the shortness leaves the gaps noted above.
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 five-parameter, zero-coverage filesystem search with no output schema, this is thin: the meaning of the required `ref` and the semantics of `path` are missing entirely, and pagination mechanics (defaults, ordering, termination) are undescribed.
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% across five parameters, and the description only glosses `pattern` and pagination. It never explains `ref` (a required, opaque identifier) or the optional `path` scoping parameter, nor glob syntax or the 1000-item page cap.
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?
States a specific verb (Find), resource (saved paths) and mechanism (glob pattern), so the agent knows what the operation returns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like layerfs_fs_list or layerfs_fs_grep, which are the obvious alternatives for listing/searching paths.
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 statement of when to use glob matching versus layerfs_fs_list (plain enumeration) or layerfs_fs_grep (content search), and no prerequisites or scope caveats. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.