Search forensic disk images for files by path pattern using glob or regex, including deleted entries, and filter by size or ISO timestamp.
Find files by path name (glob with * ? or regex), including deleted names. deleted = any|only|no. Times ISO in image timezone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | ||
| image | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| regex | No | ||
| deleted | No | any | |
| pattern | Yes | ||
| max_size | No | ||
| min_size | No | ||
| mtime_to | No | ||
| mtime_from | No |
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, and it does disclose useful behavior: deleted-file scope is controllable (any|only|no) and time values are ISO in the image's timezone. It does not say whether the search is recursive across the whole image, how results are ordered, or how the default limit of 500 truncates output.
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?
Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource and with no filler. Density is high, though the telegraphic style ('deleted = any|only|no') trades some readability for brevity.
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 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, one sentence of prose is thin. It omits result shape, pagination/limit semantics, size-filter units, and the meaning of 'part' and 'image', leaving an agent to guess on much of the invocation surface.
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 usefully explains 'pattern' (glob with * ? or regex), the 'deleted' values, and the ISO/image-timezone format for the mtime bounds, but leaves 'image', 'part', 'limit', 'min_size', and 'max_size' entirely undocumented.
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 ('Find files by path name') plus the matching modes (glob with * ? or regex) and the notable scope of including deleted names. This clearly separates it from content-search siblings like grep_files, but it never names an alternative such as ls or recover_deleted, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer find over ls (single directory listing), timeline (chronological view), or recover_deleted (deleted-only recovery), even though 'including deleted names' hints at overlap with the latter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.