Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-everything-search

mcp-everything-search

by essovius
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_folders

Find directories matching a query, optionally within a specific folder. Sort results by name, path, or date.

Instructions

Search for folders/directories only.

Args: query: Search query (optional) folder_path: Limit search to specific parent folder (optional) max_results: Maximum number of results (default 50) sort_by: Sort by: name, path, date-modified, date-created

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
folder_pathNo
max_resultsNo
sort_byNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching folders but does not disclose key behaviors like recursive search, case sensitivity, or access limitations. While straightforward, it omits important details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and includes a clear list of parameters with their defaults and options. It avoids verbosity but is slightly fragmented; a single paragraph might be cleaner.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks details on search behavior (e.g., recursion, case sensitivity) that would help an agent fully understand the tool. It is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds some meaning: documentation for defaults (max_results=50) and sort options (name, path, date-modified, date-created). However, 'query' and 'folder_path' are only described with optionality, which adds minimal value.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Search for folders/directories only,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. Among many sibling search tools (e.g., search_files, search_by_type), this tool is uniquely focused on folders, effectively distinguishing its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_files or search_by_attributes. It lacks explicit context for optimal use, such as searching only for folders vs. files.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools