Find text patterns across project files using regular expressions. Filter results with include or exclude globs and get matching file paths with line numbers.
Search for regex in project files. include/exclude globs. Returns path:line_num: line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exclude | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| max_matches | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description need not restate it. It does add the return shape (path:line_num: line), but omits whether the search is recursive, how binary/large files are handled, and any limits beyond the default max_matches.
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?
Three tight fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the clipped phrasing slightly reduces readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return-format sentence is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage routing, the definition leaves real gaps for the agent to guess at.
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 burden, yet it only glosses include/exclude globs and the regex pattern. project_path and max_matches (default 200) receive no explanation, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 (search), resource (project files), and mechanism (regex), which clearly separates it from read_file, list_directory, and edit_file. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself; nothing tells the agent how this differs from read_file or list_directory for content discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.