Find matching lines in exposed files using a case-insensitive pattern, stopping after a configurable number of hits.
Find lines containing pattern across the exposed files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Case-insensitive literal substring to look for. | |
| max_matches | No | Stop after this many hits. |
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 must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It states the basic operation but does not disclose how results are returned, potential side effects (likely none), or behavior when no matches are found or when max_matches is reached. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential meaning without superfluous text. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
The tool is simple, with no output schema or nested objects. The description adequately states the scope ('across the exposed files') and the filter. It could mention the format of results, but this is not strictly necessary for a basic search tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 100% and the parameter descriptions already explain 'pattern' as a case-insensitive literal substring and 'max_matches' as a stop condition. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the action (find lines), the resource (exposed files), and the filter (pattern). It distinguishes itself from siblings: list_files and read_file are for listing and reading, while search is for content matching.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool: whenever you need to find lines containing a specific pattern across files. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.