Locate files in a locked root directory by filename glob or content regex, with configurable path and result limits.
在根目录内搜索:name_glob 按文件名匹配,content_regex 按内容正则匹配。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| name_glob | No | * | |
| max_results | No | ||
| content_regex | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about recursion depth, permission requirements, performance, or whether the operation is read-only. The only behavioral hint is the implicit read-only nature of 'search'.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being earned conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core action, which is a plus.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage the description omits usage context, two parameter meanings, and any behavioral caveats. It is insufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently in edge cases.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only explains two of four parameters (name_glob, content_regex). Both path (default '.') and max_results (default 50) are left completely undocumented, and the phrase 'within the root directory' arguably conflicts with the configurable path parameter.
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?
The description states a clear verb (搜索结果/搜索) on a clear resource (root directory files) and distinguishes two matching modes, name_glob for filenames and content_regex for file contents. It does not differentiate itself from siblings list_dir/read_file, but the search semantics are unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_dir, read_file, or write_file, and no mention of when a name-glob search is preferable to a content-regex search. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.