lxDIG MCP

search_docs

Search indexed documentation sections by full-text query or code symbol name to retrieve relevant sections with headings, source, line numbers, and excerpts.

Instructions

Search indexed documentation sections by full-text query or by code symbol name. Returns matching SECTION nodes with heading, source document, kind (readme/adr/guide/…), line number, relevance score, and a short content excerpt. Run index_docs first to populate the index.

Tool call template

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": "search_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Full-text search query (cannot be combined with symbol)
`symbol`	No	Symbol name to look up (finds Sections that document this function/class/file via DOC_DESCRIBES edges)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`projectId`	No	Project ID (defaults to active session context)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes read-only search behavior and return structure, but does not mention error handling or behavior when index is empty. Adequate but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first describes action and result, second notes prerequisite. No redundant information, but could be slightly more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers major aspects: what it searches, how (query/symbol), what it returns (fields), and prerequisite. Lacks order/relevance details and pagination, but sufficient for a search tool with clear schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by stating query and symbol are mutually exclusive and explaining symbol lookup via DOC_DESCRIBES edges. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool searches indexed documentation sections by full-text or symbol name, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_docs (prerequisite) and semantic_search (different search type).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit prerequisite 'Run index_docs first to populate the index' and implies use case. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.