Search a codebase for structural patterns to identify recurring code structures and relationships.
Locate structural code patterns across the repository.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "find_pattern"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Locate' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it scans the entire repository, whether it requires specific permissions, or what it returns. It does not disclose any limitations or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance, making it terse rather than effectively concise.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'structural code patterns' means and ideally give examples or limitations. It does not explain the tool's scope, what filters exist, or how results are presented. This is insufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it over sibling tools.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and it adds nothing missing in this dimension.
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 uses a verb and resource ('Locate structural code patterns') but is vague about what constitutes a 'structural code pattern.' It does not differentiate from siblings like symbol_search or get_definition, which also involve locating code elements. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to understand the tool's exact scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like symbol_search or analyze_impact. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about scenarios where this tool is preferred. The single sentence implies a generic 'find' operation without any usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.