pcloud_searchFind files and folders in pCloud by matching their names against a query. Restrict the search to a specific folder using an optional path.
Search pCloud for files and folders whose names match a query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | / | |
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that matching is by name, applies to both files and folders, and is a search operation, but it omits path-scoping behavior, recursion, case sensitivity, or output limits.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the key verb, resource, and matching criterion are all immediately present. It earns its place without redundant phrasing.
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 two-parameter, non-mutating search tool with an output schema, the description provides a workable baseline: the core operation and query semantics are stated. However, the meaning of 'path' and behavioral details about search scope are missing, making it merely adequate rather than complete.
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 needs to explain both parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is matched against names, but the 'path' parameter is never mentioned in the description; the agent must guess its role from the schema's name and default value.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('pCloud'), and a precise object ('files and folders whose names match a query'). This distinguishes it from structural siblings like pcloud_list_folder by making name-based matching the defining behavior.
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 the intended use case—look up items by name rather than browsing a directory—but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over pcloud_list_folder or any other sibling. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.