Skip to main content
Glama
max-ramas

RMS Memory MCP

by max-ramas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

rms_code_search

Search a semantic code index to find matching code across indexed projects, returning language, file, symbol, kind, and line range. Pass project keys for read-only federated search.

Instructions

Search only the derived semantic code index. Results include language, file, symbol, kind, line range, and segment index. The code index is optional, so an unindexed project returns an empty result list. Pass projects: [key, …] for read-only cross-project code federation (when both project and projects are set, projects wins); does not change the active bind.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum results; default 10, maximum 100.
queryYesThe semantic code query.
projectNoRegistered project key, used when the MCP client did not provide a workspace root. Ignored when `projects` is also set.
projectsNoExplicit list of registered project keys for read-only federated code search (max 8 after dedupe). Does not change the active bind. When set together with `project`, this list wins.
include_contentNoWhether to include indexed code content; default true.
include_file_historyNoWhen true, attach the last 3 commits from the derived code_path git-history cache to each code hit. Not allowed together with projects: […] federation. Default false.
include_graph_neighborsNoWhen true, attach durable graph neighbors for each hit path. Not allowed together with projects: […] federation. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_graph_neighbors
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, attach durable graph neighbors for each hit path. Not allowed together with projects: […] federation. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_file_history
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, attach the last 3 commits from the derived code_path git-history cache to each code hit. Not allowed together with projects: […] federation. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by noting that the index is optional, that unindexed projects yield an empty list, that `projects` is read-only, and that the active bind is not changed. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the basic 'search' action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: scope, result contents, index-availability caveat, and federation behavior. The most important differentiator is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers output fields, an important edge case (empty results for unindexed projects), and federation semantics. The remaining details like limits and inclusion flags are fully described in the input schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds contextual color like 'read-only' and 'does not change the active bind,' but the precedence rule for `project` vs `projects` is already in the schema. This is a baseline case where the description mostly reinforces, not extends, the parameter guidance.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search only the derived semantic code index.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from general search tools like rms_search and states exactly what domain it operates on. The result fields are also enumerated, making the tool's purpose concrete.

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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool is useful: it searches only the derived semantic index)Skip and warns that unindexed projects return empty results. It also explains the `projects` parameter for cross-project federation and the precedence rule. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when to prefer rms_search over this one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools