Find files containing specific text in documents, reports, or desktop folders. Supports optional case sensitivity.
Search for files containing specific text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Folder name to search in. Available: documents, reports, desktop | |
| searchText | Yes | Text to search for in file contents | |
| caseSensitive | No | Whether search should be case sensitive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' conveys a read-only intent, and 'containing specific text' clarifies that it searches file contents rather than filenames. However, it does not describe the return format, whether search is recursive, or any other behavioral nuances such as limits or exclusions.
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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and target resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple search tool, the core behavior and schema-defined parameters are sufficiently clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, matching lines), leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 specific verb and resource: searching files by text content. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings list_files and read_file, since the focus is on finding files that contain specific text rather than listing or reading files.
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 when to use the tool: when you need to locate files containing particular text. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'use list_files to enumerate files' or 'use read_file to view contents.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.