Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-injector

mcp-injector

by foldwork-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

injector_regex_search

Search file contents using regex or literal strings, bypassing tokenization to find punctuation-heavy patterns.

Instructions

Fallback for exact literal or regex searches against file contents. Bypasses FTS5 tokenization to find punctuation-heavy strings or regex patterns.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "injector_regex_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe literal string or regex pattern to search for.
is_regexNoIf true, treats the query as an extended regex (-E). If false, treats as a fixed literal string (-F).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions bypassing FTS5 tokenization, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential performance impacts, scope of search (e.g., all files or specific directories), or whether it is read-only (inferred but not stated).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by behavioral detail. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and key behavioral trait. It could mention the scope of files searched (e.g., entire project) to be fully self-contained, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra (e.g., 'punctuation-heavy strings'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a fallback for literal or regex searches on file contents, bypassing FTS5 tokenization for punctuation-heavy strings or regex patterns. This distinguishes it from siblings, which are not search tools, and provides a specific verb-resource-modifier structure.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly frames it as a 'fallback' and mentions when to use (for punctuation-heavy strings or regex patterns). It implies a primary FTS5 search exists but does not name alternatives, limiting explicit guidance.

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