Search classes, methods, interfaces, and variables across an entire workspace to locate code symbols by name instead of relying on text search.
Search for classes, methods, interfaces, and variables across the entire workspace. Much faster and more accurate than text search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses a useful behavioral comparison (better than text search) but never states that it is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or how the limit affects output. Given that it is an obviously safe lookup and an output schema exists, this is adequate but thin.
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?
Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded. The 'much faster and more accurate' sentence earns its place as a selection hint, though it is slightly promotional in tone.
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% schema coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented limit parameter and ideally clarify query syntax (fuzzy, camelCase, regex). It does neither, leaving an agent to guess.
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% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'query' is inferable from 'search', but 'limit' is never explained in schema or description (what it limits, default null behavior), leaving real ambiguity.
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 (search) and concrete resource types (classes, methods, interfaces, variables) with scope (entire workspace). It implicitly distinguishes itself from document_symbols by scope, though it never names the sibling tool.
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 'faster and more accurate than text search' line implies when to prefer it over textual searching, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like document_symbols or find_references for local or reference-specific lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.