Locate every occurrence of a word or phrase in a PDF, returning page number and surrounding text. Supports whole-word and case-sensitive matching.
Every occurrence of a word or phrase, with its page and surrounding text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| password | No | ||
| whole_word | No | ||
| case_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, result limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. Since the tool has an output schema, some return information might be covered there, but the description itself is sparse on behavior.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded but extremely sparse, which may be too brief given the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter documentation.
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?
With five parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema that presumably covers return values, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, nor does it provide usage context or behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. For a tool with this many parameters, more guidance is needed.
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%, meaning none of the five parameters (path, query, password, whole_word, case_sensitive) are documented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent with no information about what 'path' refers to, what 'query' accepts, or what 'password' is for. This is a severe gap.
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 describes a search operation that returns occurrences with page and surrounding context, which is understandable. However, it does not specify that it searches within a PDF/document (implied by siblings like read_text and pdf_info), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_sensitive_data or replace_text. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_sensitive_data or replace_text. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.