Find code or notes by meaning when you don't know exact names; supports natural-language queries with local embeddings and offline keyword fallback.
Find code/notes BY MEANING ("where is auth token validated") when the exact name is unknown. Local embeddings; keyword fallback offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Natural-language description of what you are looking for | |
| scope | No | What to search (default code) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the useful behavioral fact that local embeddings are used with keyword fallback when offline, which is real operational context. However it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or how relevance is ranked.
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 compact sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the mechanism/fallback note follows efficiently.
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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, and the meaningful operational detail (local embeddings, offline keyword fallback). It is nearly complete; only ranking or pagination behavior for the limit parameter is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 67%; the schema documents 'query' and 'scope' but leaves 'limit' without a description. The description itself doesn't add parameter syntax beyond the query example, but the baseline for this coverage level is reasonable and the query example clarifies intended input. It could have documented limit semantics, so not a 5.
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 ('Find code/notes') with the defining mechanism ('BY MEANING') and an illustrative natural-language example. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_symbol, which presumably match exact names – the description explicitly notes this tool handles the case 'when the exact name is unknown'.
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?
Gives a clear when-to-use signal: use it when the exact name is unknown, with a concrete example query. It doesn't explicitly name find_symbol as the alternative to use for known names, but the conditional phrasing effectively steers the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.