Search one file in a forensic image or local extracted file for terms or regex patterns, returning matching offsets with surrounding context.
Search one file (in-image ref, or local_path to an extracted file such as pagefile.sys) for terms; returns offsets and context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| regex | No | ||
| terms | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| max_hits | No | ||
| encodings | No | ||
| local_path | No | ||
| ignore_case | 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. It discloses only that results are offsets plus context; it says nothing about default limits (max_hits=200, context=100, ignore_case=true), encoding behavior, performance on large images, or what happens when no terms/ref are supplied despite every parameter being optional.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly sized for a one-line summary. It is efficient but so terse that it forgoes clarification an agent would need for a 10-parameter tool.
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 forensic search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits how to combine inputs (ref+part+image vs local_path), the meaning of the parameters, and any behavioral expectations.
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% across 10 parameters. The description adds meaning for ref vs local_path and alludes to 'context', but leaves part, image, regex, terms, max_hits, encodings, and ignore_case completely unexplained in both schema and prose.
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 resource scope (one file) and clarifies the two file sources (in-image ref or local_path to an extracted file). The singular 'one file' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling grep_files, though that sibling is never named, so differentiation requires inference.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'one file' scope and the ref-vs-local_path distinction. There is no guidance on when to choose this over grep_files, grep_unallocated, strings, or find, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.