Find matching rules, skills, workflows, or agents by running fuzzy full-text queries, with optional category or project filters.
Full-text fuzzy search across all content items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| category | No | Restrict search to a category (rules, skills, workflows, agents) | |
| projectDir | No | Project directory used to detect the stack and annotate results with applicability (applies-to). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"Restrict search to a category (rules, skills, workflows, agents, commands, templates)"New value: +"Restrict search to a category (rules, skills, workflows, agents)"Input schema / properties / projectDirAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Project directory used to detect the stack and annotate results with applicability (applies-to).",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavior: matching is full-text and fuzzy, and the scope is all content items. It says nothing about result ordering, ranking, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving real gaps for a non-annotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given that no other section compensates for the missing usage and behavioral 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for behavioral and routing context, and it covers only the search mechanics. Return shape, ranking behavior, and when to prefer siblings like list or get are unaddressed.
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 100%, so query, limit, category, and projectDir are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the query semantics ('full-text fuzzy') and the cross-content scope, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: full-text fuzzy search across content items. That is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list/get tools that could also retrieve content.
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 statement of when to use this over list or get, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'search' implies query-driven retrieval, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.