MCP GitHub CrunchTools

Search Code Tool

search_code_tool

Read-only

Search for code across GitHub.

Instructions

Search for code across GitHub.

Uses GitHub code search syntax (e.g., "addClass repo:jquery/jquery").

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_code_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`query`	Yes	Search query string
`per_page`	No	Results per page, max 100 (default: 30)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the syntax hint but says nothing about the notoriously tight rate limits on GitHub code search, result caps, or pagination traversal behavior. Net: a modest value-add beyond annotations, with real gaps left.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, example immediately after. Nothing wasted, nothing pruned to the point of vagueness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented. The remaining gap is operational: no mention of rate limiting or how to page through large result sets for a search tool where both matter.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by supplying a concrete query example ("addClass repo:jquery/jquery") that teaches the qualifier syntax the schema's terse "Search query string" does not. It does not address page/per_page, but those are self-documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Search for code across GitHub." An agent can distinguish it from the issue-oriented siblings (search_issues_tool, list_issues_tool) and from read-only file tools (get_file_content_tool), though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the pointer to GitHub code search syntax and the sample query, which tells the agent how to phrase a query but not when this tool beats list_repo_tree_tool or get_file_content_tool. No when-not or exclusion guidance is given.

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