sailfish_repo_findSearch a configured Git repository or subtree for a query to locate code or text patterns. Helps developers find files in Sailfish OS projects.
Search a repo or subtree under the configured git root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | Command timeout in seconds. | |
| max_count | No | ||
| fixed_strings | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope constraint (configured git root) but says nothing about result format, ordering, truncation at max_count, or timeout behavior, so its added value is modest.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely concise.
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 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the single-sentence description leaves key calling details (query syntax, path scoping, result limits) undocumented. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the operational contract is 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 only 20% (only timeout is documented), yet the description adds no meaning for query, path, max_count, or fixed_strings. It does not clarify whether query is a regex or literal by default, what path scoping means, or how max_count truncation behaves, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (search) and resource (repo/subtree under the configured git root), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like sailfish_repo_status or sailfish_qml_find_translations, and 'find' versus 'search' semantics (pattern matching? grep?) are left implicit.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. The only guidance is implicit in the phrase 'under the configured git root', which narrows scope but doesn't route the agent between this tool and related repo/qml search siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.