Search case-insensitively for substrings across classes, labels, exports, strings, and imports to locate symbols in a game executable's RTTI and cross-reference graph.
Substring search (case-insensitive) across classes, labels, exports, strings and imports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| kinds | No | class,label,export,string,import | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring behavior and the entity types searched, but omits read-only nature, permissions, side effects, build scoping, and limit behavior. It adds some useful behavioral context but remains incomplete.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating what the tool searches.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves build, limit, kinds formatting, and usage context undocumented for a four-parameter search tool.
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 only implies what the kinds parameter controls by naming the searchable entity categories, and says nothing about build, limit, or query semantics. Most parameter meaning remains undocumented.
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 specific verb+resource: case-insensitive substring search across classes, labels, exports, strings, and imports. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sql or labels.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sql, labels, or class_info. The scope implies a general search, but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.