mcp-codesearch

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_similar

Search a codebase for code similar to a given snippet, returning ranked matches. Filter by language or path to locate duplicate or related code.

Instructions

Find code similar to the provided snippet.

Args: code: Code snippet to find similar code for path: Root path of codebase to search (defaults to current directory) limit: Max results to return (default 10) language: Filter by language (python, typescript, etc.) exclude_self: If True, excludes exact matches of the input code (default True) output_format: Output format - "text" (default), "json", or "markdown"

Returns: Similar code snippets ranked by similarity score

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`code`	Yes
`path`	No	.
`limit`	No
`language`	No
`exclude_self`	No
`output_format`	No	text

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.20Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return of ranked similar snippets and the exclude_self feature, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but somewhat verbose. Could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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?

Description covers purpose, parameters, and returns. Output schema exists, so return format is sufficiently explained. Adequate for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 0%, so description carries full burden. Each parameter is described in the Args section, adding meaning beyond schema property titles.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description states 'Find code similar to the provided snippet' clearly indicating verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like code_search or find_references.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server