Search the SysML model for elements whose names contain the specified string. Returns a list of matching elements to help locate model components quickly.
Find all elements whose name contains the given string. Returns list of matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns a list of matches, but does not state whether the search is case-sensitive, whether it covers all element types, or whether it has any side effects. This is insufficient for a read tool without annotation support.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and result. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail the return values. However, it lacks critical context about the scope of the search (all elements?) and how it relates to sibling search tools. This incompleteness could lead an agent to use the wrong tool or misinterpret results.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It clarifies that the 'name' parameter is the string to search for, but it does not add details like case sensitivity, format, or regex support. This is a minimal but adequate explanation given there is only one parameter.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Find all elements') and the condition (name contains the given string), which makes the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like find_by_type or find_by_qualified_name, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_by_type, find_by_qualified_name, or search. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between them, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.