Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Free Codin Agent

Free Codin Agent

by office233
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

find_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

Locate files matching a glob pattern such as **/*.test.js in a chosen root directory, returning paths for source, test, or config files.

Instructions

Find files by glob pattern, e.g. "**/*.test.js" or "package.json".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "find_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRoot directory
patternYes
maxResultsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the glob semantics that make the operation predictable, but it omits the maxResults default cap (500) that bounds results, which is relevant behavior for a finder.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and examples doing useful work. No filler, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only file finder with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is nearly complete, but gaps remain: the maxResults default/cap, the meaning of path, and any routing versus list_directory or search_code.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by illustrating valid pattern syntax ('**/*.test.js'). However it says nothing about path (root directory) or the maxResults cap, leaving two of three parameters to the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find files') and adds glob-pattern examples that clarify the mechanism. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_directory or search_code, but the glob framing gives it a recognizable identity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It never says when to prefer globbing here versus search_code or list_directory, so the agent must infer selection 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools