Global Executables

Find similar executable names

search_similar_executables

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find indexed command names that may be confused with a proposed executable, helping assess typo or naming-collision risk after exact existence checks.

Instructions

Find indexed command names that may be confused with one proposed name.

    Use this after an exact check for typo risk; use check_executable for exact existence, and do
    not substitute this fuzzy result. name seeds case-folded trigram candidates, scope filters
    them before scoring, and limit applies after ranking by edit distance, trigram similarity,
    then name. The tool makes no live registry call; an empty match list covers only the fixed
    snapshot and optional scope, not global absence.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Exact, case-sensitive executable command name, not a package name or filesystem path; must be 1-255 characters without path separators or control characters.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of sorted results to return.
`scope`	No	Optional provider filters: source_type, package_system, distribution_family, distribution, distribution_release, language, registry, or ecosystem. All supplied key-value pairs must match; scoped negative results remain non-exhaustive.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of sorted results to return."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Exact, case-sensitive executable command name, not a package name or filesystem path; must be 1-255 characters without path separators or control characters."

addedInput schema / properties / scope / description

Added value: +"Optional provider filters: source_type, package_system, distribution_family, distribution, distribution_release, language, registry, or ecosystem. All supplied key-value pairs must match; scoped negative results remain non-exhaustive."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that no live registry call is made, that results come from a fixed snapshot, that an empty list does not prove global absence, and the exact ranking order (edit distance, trigram similarity, then name). This is exactly the negative-result semantics an agent needs to avoid over-claiming.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the routing rule, and every sentence carries information. The parameter sentence is somewhat dense and run-on, and the block indentation adds noise, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. Given that, the description is complete: it covers the fuzzy-vs-exact distinction, the snapshot limitation, negative-result caveats, and parameter interaction, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real pipeline meaning: name seeds case-folded trigram candidates, scope filters before scoring, and limit applies after ranking. That clarifies ordering effects (scope narrows the candidate pool; limit truncates the ranked output) that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (indexed command names) with an explicit qualifier: candidates that 'may be confused with one proposed name.' It implicitly separates itself from check_executable by characterizing this as fuzzy typo-risk search rather than exact lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit sequencing ('use this after an exact check for typo risk'), names the alternative tool for the other case ('use check_executable for exact existence'), and adds a prohibition ('do not substitute this fuzzy result'). Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server