Locate text in documents, returning page numbers, occurrence counts, and a snippet for each match.
Locate text: page numbers, counts, and a snippet each. Never a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| regex | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| max_hits | No | ||
| password | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating the output components (page numbers, counts, snippets) and the hard boundary that it never returns a page.
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 extremely compact: two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the key exclusion is delivered clearly at the end.
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?
For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential result shape and boundary but leaves parameter semantics and edge-case behavior unexplained. It is minimally adequate for basic calls but incomplete for confident use of advanced options like regex or password-protected sources.
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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but it does not explain source, pages, regex, max_hits, or password. Only 'query' is implicitly understandable from 'Locate text', leaving most parameters underspecified.
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 uses a specific verb ('Locate text') and names the resource and output shape: page numbers, counts, and a snippet each. The final 'Never a page' clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like read_page, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 implies clear usage: use this when you need to find text locations rather than retrieve full page content. The 'Never a page' statement provides an explicit exclusion, though it does not name sibling alternatives like extract or outline by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.