Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
folder-index

folder-index

by git-raka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_files

Find files by full-text queries across names, paths, and extracted document contents, with filters for extension, folder, file kind, and modified date.

Instructions

Full-text search over file names, paths and extracted contents (PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, text, code, zip listings, OCR'd scans and images). Every word must match; words are prefix-matched. FTS5 syntax ("exact phrase", OR, NOT) also works. ext: comma list like "pdf,docx". folder: substring of the path, or "/..." to search one indexed folder. kind: document | text | archive | image | media | binary | other. modified_after: YYYY-MM-DD.

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_text": "<query_text>"
    },
    "name": "search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extNo
kindNo
limitNo
folderNo
query_textYes
modified_afterNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: conjunctive matching, prefix matching, FTS5 syntax support, and multi-format content extraction. It omits result-set behavior (default cap of 10, ordering, any index coverage caveats) and does not explicitly state the operation is read-only.

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?

Well front-loaded — purpose first, then per-filter syntax in a tight fragment list, no filler. The telegraphic style ('ext: comma list like ...') is efficient but slightly terse, and query semantics and filter syntax are interleaved rather than separated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the query/filter semantics an agent needs to call it correctly are covered. Gaps remain around the limit parameter, default result count, and result ordering.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so this is strong compensation: ext gets a comma-list example, folder gets substring and '<label>/...' semantics, kind gets an explicit value list the schema lacks, modified_after gets a date format, and query_text gets matching rules. Only 'limit' is left completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over file names, paths and extracted contents') and enumerates the content types covered. The emphasis on extracted/OCR'd content and FTS5 semantics clearly separates it from a plain name/glob matcher like find_files.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the search semantics; the description never says when to prefer this over find_files or read_file_text, nor any exclusions. The syntax notes help the agent form a query but do not route between tools.

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