Search printable strings in a scanned file using case-insensitive regex to locate patterns and investigate potential malware indicators.
Case-insensitive regex search over printable strings extracted from one file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max results, default 40, max 200 | |
| pattern | Yes | ||
| scan_id | Yes | scan_id returned by scan_file | |
| file_index | Yes |
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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful traits: case-insensitive matching, regex semantics, and that it searches printable strings from a single file. It does not disclose result format, regex dialect, or how matches are returned.
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 dense sentence with zero waste; the core matching semantics and scope are front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description should indicate what a match looks like (offsets? string context? counts?), and it does not. For a search tool returning potentially many results, this leaves a meaningful gap beyond what annotations and schema cover.
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 coverage is 50%: 'limit' and 'scan_id' are documented in the schema, but 'pattern' and 'file_index' are not. The description clarifies that pattern is a case-insensitive regex and that scope is one file, partially compensating for file_index, but adds no format detail for pattern syntax or indexing conventions.
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 and resource: regex search over printable strings extracted from one file. Clear what it does, though differentiation from siblings (scan_file, list_files) is only implicit — 'extracted from one file' hints it operates on prior scan output rather than raw files.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternatives named. The dependency on a prior scan is only inferable from the schema's 'scan_id returned by scan_file', not from the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.