td-atlas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

td_project_grep

Search Python and GLSL code stored in a project's DATs. Use regular expressions to find code that file search cannot reach inside .toe containers.

Instructions

Search the Python and GLSL held inside a project's DATs.

Ordinary file search cannot reach this code: it lives inside the .toe container, not on disk. pattern is a regular expression.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "td_project_grep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`limit`	No
`pattern`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the searched code lives inside the .toe container and that pattern is a regular expression. It does not mention return format, limit behavior, or side effects, but the output schema partially covers return expectations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a useful one-sentence rationale about the .toe container. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description captures the search scope and the unusual container situation, which is the core context an agent needs. However, the required file parameter is ambiguous and limit's effect is not explained, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool with no annotation support.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. Only pattern is clarified as a regular expression; file and limit are left undefined, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from parameter names and defaults.

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: 'Search the Python and GLSL held inside a project's DATs.' It also differentiates from ordinary file search by explaining the .toe container limitation, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that ordinary file search cannot reach this code because it lives inside the .toe container, so this tool is the correct route for searching DAT code. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or list exclusions, but the context is clear.

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