Search text files recursively under an allowed directory and return matching lines. Supports regex, file extensions, case sensitivity, and result limits.
Search text files recursively under an allowed directory and return matching lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. | |
| query | Yes | ||
| regex | No | ||
| extensions | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| caseSensitive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that traversal is recursive, constrained to an allowed directory, and returns matching lines, but says nothing about result caps, regex behavior, or that non-text files are skipped.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the key scoping constraint front-loaded. Efficient, though arguably too thin to structure a 7-parameter tool.
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?
A 7-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage needs far more from the description than one sentence. Filtering options, result limits, and error behavior are all absent.
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 only 14% (only the nested agent object is documented), and the description does not compensate. It says nothing about regex, extensions, caseSensitive, or maxResults, leaving six parameters semantically unexplained.
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 (search), resource (text files), scope (recursively under an allowed directory), and output (matching lines). It is distinguishable from fs_list/fs_read in spirit, but never names a sibling or contrasts behavior, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for fs_search, fs_read, or fs_list for a given need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.