Find relevant code files and symbols in a repository using semantic similarity. Submit a query and repo name to receive a ranked list with relevance scores.
Search for relevant code context using semantic similarity.
Returns a ranked list of matching files and symbols with relevance scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| repo_name | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type and ranking but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, required repository state (e.g., synced), or other side effects. For a search tool, the lack of explicit read-only or safety information is a notable gap.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and return format. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description is minimal. It does not mention parameter usage, potential prerequisites (e.g., repository must be synced), or any nuances of the ranking. While the output schema covers return structure, the description still leaves critical context unaddressed for a tool with this complexity.
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 by explaining parameters. It does not. Although parameter names (repo_name, query, max_results) are self-explanatory, the description adds no detail on their semantics, expected formats, or constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema names.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Search'), resource ('code context'), and method ('semantic similarity'), and specifies the return type ('ranked list of matching files and symbols with relevance scores'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_context and get_symbol_detail by emphasizing semantic similarity rather than direct retrieval, though it does not 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies it is for semantic search but does not state explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.