Find iCloud Drive files by filename or path, with optional extension filters (e.g., pdf, .docx) and a configurable result limit.
Search Drive filenames and paths. Optional ext filter like pdf or .docx. Capped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ext | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail is 'Capped,' which is ambiguous and does not explain the cap size, pagination behavior, or result format.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. 'Capped' is cryptic but still brief; the main weakness is under-specification rather than wordiness.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter search tool. It lacks context for path, limit, cap behavior, and how this tool should be selected over list_folder or other siblings.
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 the description must compensate. It partially explains ext with examples and implies query semantics, but path and limit are not explained, and the 'Capped' note is not connected to the limit 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 the tool searches Drive filenames and paths, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings list_folder or read_text, but the search-focused purpose is evident.
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 implies when the tool should be used: when the agent needs to search Drive by filename or path. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.