Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Xcode MCP Server

Xcode MCP Server

by r-huijts
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_files

Search directories for files matching glob patterns, with controls for search depth and hidden file inclusion.

Instructions

Searches for files matching a pattern in a directory.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "find_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory to search in. Can be absolute, relative to active directory, or use ~ for home directory.
patternYesGlob pattern to match files (e.g., '*.swift' or '**/*.json')
maxDepthNoMaximum directory depth to search
showHiddenNoIf true, include hidden files in the search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It only says 'searches for files' without disclosing return format, recursion behavior, or hidden file defaults (though schema covers parameters). No context on side effects or output, leaving the agent to infer.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with action and object. Efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 4 params and no output schema, the description gives minimal information. It doesn't describe what is returned (e.g., list of matching paths) or any default behaviors. A tool-calling agent would need to infer from schema or test. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so description adds no extra meaning. It doesn't elaborate on path resolution or glob syntax beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool finds files via pattern matching in a directory. 'Searches for files' is a specific verb+resource, and the schema clarifies pattern as glob. It differentiates from sibling search_in_files (content search) and list_directory (listing).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for pattern-based filename lookup but doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives such as search_in_files for content or list_directory for full listings.

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