Search for files and directories by name within permitted locations, automatically restricting results to allowed base directories when no path is specified.
Search files and directories by name under allowed directories. Prefer path under the user home (e.g. /home/). If path is / or omitted, search is automatically limited to configured allowed_base_dirs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint: search is automatically limited to allowed_base_dirs when path is '/' or omitted. This is meaningful context not in the structured data.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The first states purpose, the second gives essential path behavior. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search scope, the path default, and the safety profile via annotations. It doesn't mention return format or recursion, but these are easily inferable and not critical for correct invocation.
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 explains query as the name to search for and clarifies the path default behavior. However, it omits query matching semantics (partial, case sensitivity, regex) and only partially explains path semantics.
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 and resource: 'Search files and directories by name under allowed directories.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_files, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_files or get_directory_tree. The path preference advice ('Prefer path under the user home') and automatic limiting behavior are parameter usage hints, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.