rev-eng-cursor-regex-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Inspect Terms

document.inspect_terms

Read-only

Inspect tokenization patterns by viewing emitted trigrams or sparse n-grams with offsets and rarity weights for a file or text snippet.

Instructions

Show the trigrams or sparse n-grams that would be emitted for a file or text snippet, including offsets and rarity weights.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "document.inspect_terms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	Choose the tokenization mode to inspect.
`path`	No	Absolute path to the source file to inspect.
`text`	No	Inline text snippet to inspect instead of reading a file.
`maxTerms`	No	Maximum number of emitted terms to return. Defaults to 256.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`terms`	Yes
`termCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the output includes offsets and rarity weights and that the tool simulates emission. It is consistent with readOnlyHint. Could improve by clarifying if an index is required.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the key action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the description covers the tool's purpose and outputs, it is largely complete. Minor gap: no mention of maxTerms default behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so description need not add parameter details. It does not elaborate on any parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description specifies the verb 'Show', the resource 'trigrams or sparse n-grams', and the context 'for a file or text snippet, including offsets and rarity weights'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools which focus on indexing and search.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implicitly states usage (to inspect tokenization output) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server