agent-utils-mcp

tool_regex_test

Test a regex pattern against text and retrieve all matches.

Instructions

Test a regex pattern against text and return all matches.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "tool_regex_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`flags`	No
`pattern`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that all matches are returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid regex patterns, zero matches, or how flags alter matching semantics. The description is adequate but not transparent about edge cases.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. Every word contributes value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is a simple stateless utility and an output schema is present, so return-value shape is already covered. However, the description still lacks guidance on flags formatting, error behavior, and usage context. These are gaps, but the presence of the output schema and simple parameter names keep the description minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 for the undocumented parameters. It clarifies that 'pattern' is applied to 'text', but it does not explain the format or allowed values of the 'flags' parameter, nor does it describe any constraints on the pattern or text. This leaves a meaningful semantic gap.

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 states a specific action ('Test a regex pattern'), a clear resource ('against text'), and an observable outcome ('return all matches'). It is immediately distinguishable from all listed sibling tools, none of which perform regex matching.

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 implies when the tool would be used, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to reach for this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. There is no advice about handling edge cases or what kinds of regex tasks this tool is best suited for.

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

Deploy Server