Search indexed symbols by name within a local repository to locate definitions and references. Returns ranked results for AI agents without uploading code.
Search indexed symbols by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| root | 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 burden. It doesn't state whether search is exact/prefix/fuzzy, whether it respects the optional root scope, whether results are ranked or paginated, or any limits. The 'indexed' qualifier hints at index dependency but nothing is explained.
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 terse sentence with no filler. However, brevity here borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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 described. But with 0% param coverage, no annotations, and numerous ambiguous siblings, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently or choose it over alternatives.
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%, so both parameters ('name', 'root') are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions searching 'by name' but adds nothing about matching semantics, and does not mention the 'root' parameter at all.
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+resource ('Search indexed symbols by name') but is bare-bones. With siblings like mimry_find, mimry_semantic, mimry_related, and mimry_context, it's unclear how 'search by name' differs from 'find' or other search tools – no differentiation is offered.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. Given many overlapping-looking siblings (mimry_find, mimry_semantic, mimry_related), an agent gets no help choosing this tool over the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.