storm_findSearch symbols, strings, or code across Storm-engine game builds to locate reverse-engineering targets and resolve build-specific references.
Search symbols (local, cheap), strings, or code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'local, cheap', which is genuine non-obvious behavioral context about cost and locality, but it discloses nothing about result shape, ranking, or pagination limits.
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 short sentence with the verb and resources front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate compression.
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, but with 0% parameter coverage, three undescribed parameters, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for a four-parameter tool with twenty-plus siblings competing for selection.
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% across four parameters. The description's 'symbols, strings, or code' loosely mirrors the mode enum (redundant, since the enum values are already in the schema) and says nothing about query syntax, build, or limit, leaving three parameters effectively 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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and three concrete resources (symbols, strings, code), so the agent knows the tool's domain immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like storm_asset_find or storm_resolve, so an agent must guess which search-family tool applies.
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?
The parenthetical '(local, cheap)' vaguely implies a preference for this tool when a fast local lookup is acceptable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (storm_asset_find, storm_resolve, storm_xrefs). Routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.