Find project files by name, path, or defined symbols to pinpoint where code lives without grep or glob.
Acha ARQUIVOS do projeto pelo nome/caminho ou pelos símbolos que definem (ex.: "checkout", "auth middleware", "useCart"). Mais rápido e preciso que grep/glob para localizar onde algo mora.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No | ||
| consulta | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds a comparative-performance claim ('mais rápido e preciso que grep/glob') but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or truncation behavior tied to the 'limite' parameter.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and examples embedded inline rather than as a bloated list. No filler, though the trailing comparative clause is more marketing than specification.
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 return-value description is not required, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Still, with 0% schema coverage the unexplained 'limite' parameter and the lack of sibling differentiation leave real gaps for an agent invoking this tool.
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 must carry the burden. It usefully explains what 'consulta' matches (file names/paths and the symbols a file defines) with examples, but the 'limite' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained 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+resource ('Acha ARQUIVOS do projeto') and the two lookup modes (name/path or defining symbols), with concrete query examples. It differentiates from grep/glob, but does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as 'buscar', 'onde', or 'caminho', leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among search-like tools.
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?
Provides implied guidance by positioning itself as faster and more accurate than grep/glob for locating code, which tells the agent when to reach for it over generic text search. However, it never names a sibling tool or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing among the many search/lookup siblings remains unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.