Search bounded text files within an approved workspace and return sanitized line excerpts, so you can locate matching content without exposing hidden secrets.
Search bounded text files and return sanitized line excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| query | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| include_hidden | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral signals that the schema cannot: results are 'bounded' (there are scope/volume limits) and 'sanitized' (output is redacted). It says nothing about permissions, ordering, or what the cursor paginates over, which is a gap for a paged search.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise for a tool with five parameters and pagination. The terseness costs more than it saves.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, an agent cannot determine scoping, pagination, or hidden-file behavior from the description.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'query' is implied by 'Search', but path scoping, cursor semantics, page_size behavior, and especially include_hidden are given no meaning 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 specific verb (Search) and resource (bounded text files) plus the return shape (sanitized line excerpts). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'grep', which is likely the closest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to choose this over grep, glob, or read_text_file. The word 'bounded' hints at a size limit but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.