Search documents, stories, or selections for text matching specific formatting like font, size, color, bold, italic, or style. Use it to locate formatted text before editing or auditing.
Find text with specific formatting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | document | |
| format | No | ||
| findWhat | Yes | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It omits whether this is a read-only search, what the result set looks like, how matches are returned, or any scoping/performance behavior — a significant gap given grep can be expensive.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight, front-loaded communication of needed detail.
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 4-parameter tool with a nested format object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to correctly construct findWhat or the format matcher.
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 25%; only document_id is described in the schema, while findWhat, format (a nested object with eight sub-fields), and scope are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of these, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 verb ('Find') and resource ('text') with a qualifier ('with specific formatting'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as grep_find and text_searchFormatting, leaving the agent unable to tell them apart.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus grep_find, grep_replaceFormat, or text_searchFormatting, no prerequisites, and no scope guidance despite the 'scope' enum. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.