Find text in a document body and return up to 50 matches with surrounding snippets for review.
Search the document body for text. Returns up to 50 matches with a text snippet around each hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to find. | |
| matchCase | No | Case-sensitive search. Default false. | |
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: a cap of 50 matches and a text snippet around each hit, which tells the agent results are truncated and excerpted. However, it doesn't clarify ordering, whether all matches or matches-per-section, or permissions needed, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, and the return behavior is stated up front after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
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 and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and return shape (50 matches, snippets). A bit more on result ordering or how documentId omission is resolved would make it complete, but it's sufficient for calling the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents text, matchCase, and documentId. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Search the document body for text') plus what it returns. It's clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_text, find_in_range, or read_paragraphs, so an agent could confuse it with them.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as search_text, find_in_range, read_deck_text, and read_paragraphs available, the description gives no criteria for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.