everything-mcp

everything_count

Count files that match a search query, optionally restricted to a given path, leveraging the local NTFS index for fast results.

Instructions

Count matching files

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": "everything_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Path filter
`query`	Yes	Search query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Count matching files.' It does not mention return format, path filter behavior, or whether the operation is safely read-only beyond what is implied by the word 'count.' The description fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core purpose without waste.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly clarify that the result is a numeric count, nor does it explain the role of the optional path filter. The absence of output schema increases the burden on the description, but given the simplicity, the gap is not severe.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (path with 'Path filter' and query with 'Search query'). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so it remains at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Count' with resource 'matching files,' clearly indicating the tool counts files matching a query. This distinguishes it from sibling everything_search, which likely returns the files themselves, and everything_health, which presumably checks service status.

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 everything_search or everything_health. There is no mention of alternative tools, exclusions, or contextual signals to help an agent decide when counting is preferable to searching.

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

Deploy Server