Search indexed repository files by query to get ranked matches and ranking reasons. Enable optional semantic recall for local code context without uploading code.
Search indexed files with ranking reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| semantic | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to. It doesn't state read-only behavior, whether it hits an index vs. live filesystem, whether it requires prior init/reindex, or what 'ranking reasons' means concretely.
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?
One short sentence – not bloated, but under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is front-loaded but so sparse it conveys little.
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 needn't be explained, but for a 4-param search tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage the description is far too thin to call correctly against a dense sibling set.
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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions 'query', 'root', 'limit', or 'semantic', leaving the semantic-vs-keyword toggle and root scoping semantics entirely unexplained.
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 verb (search) and resource (indexed files) plus a distinctive output trait (ranking reasons). But it is thin: it does not differentiate from siblings like mimry_semantic or mimry_related, and the exact difference between 'search' here vs. semantic variants is left unclear.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. With 20+ sibling tools including mimry_semantic, mimry_related, and mimry_route, an agent gets zero help choosing this over those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.