phabricator-mcp

phabricator_file_search

Read-only

Search Phabricator files by name, author, date, or ID to locate uploaded files. Filter results and paginate through matches for targeted file discovery.

Instructions

Search for files in Phabricator

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": "phabricator_file_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`after`	No	Cursor for next-page pagination
`limit`	No	Maximum results (max 100)
`order`	No	Result order
`before`	No	Cursor for previous-page pagination
`queryKey`	No	Built-in query: "all", "authored"
`attachments`	No	Data attachments
`constraints`	No	Search constraints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.19May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely confirms a search operation without adding behavioral context. It does not describe pagination behavior, result shape, or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is extremely terse for a tool with seven parameters and nested constraints, but it is not poorly structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with nested constraint objects, pagination cursors, and no output schema, the one-line description is too skeletal. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description does not explain search scope, expected results, or when to use this search over sibling file tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline score is 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb and resource: searching files in Phabricator. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as phabricator_file_info or other search tools, but the basic purpose is understandable.

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. It does not mention phabricator_file_info, phabricator_file_upload, or any other file-related sibling, nor does it explain typical search scenarios.

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

Deploy Server