Search cached War Selection mod code and drafts with case-insensitive regex to find matches by file and line, with surrounding context lines.
Regex search (case-insensitive) across cached mod code and drafts; returns file:line with context lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| regex | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| latest_only | No | ||
| include_drafts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matching is case-insensitive, scope covers both cached code and drafts, and output is file:line with surrounding context lines. It omits what 'cached' implies about staleness, which would have been useful.
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 tight sentence with the operation and payload front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
Adequate but incomplete for a 5-parameter, zero-coverage search tool with no output schema. It covers the search semantics and return shape, but leaves the limit/latest_only semantics and the freshness of the 'cached' corpus unexplained.
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 parameter burden and it only partially does. It hints at the drafts scope (include_drafts) and context lines (context) but says nothing about limit or the meaning of latest_only, leaving two of five parameters undocumented 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 concrete verb+resource: regex search over 'cached mod code and drafts', and adds the result shape (file:line with context). This distinguishes it from search_api and search_guide by scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the resource noun.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer from the resource scope that this searches mod source rather than game/API docs; nothing states when to reach for this versus search_api or search_guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.