Code Search MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: automatic listing of injected components, resolution of imports, auto-expansion of model fields and comments, architectural sorting of files, and API outline generation. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or output format specifics, which prevents a perfect score.

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 well-structured with bullet points and tips, making it easy to scan. However, it could be more concise by integrating the tips into the main points and avoiding marketing phrases like 'Panoramic Vision'. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists in explaining auto-expansion benefits.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-file code analysis with automatic expansions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key functionalities and usage. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or limitations (e.g., file size constraints), which would enhance completeness for such a sophisticated tool.

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 low (33%), with only AbsolutePaths having a description. The tool description does not explain what AbsolutePaths, StartLine, or EndLine parameters mean or how they affect the analysis. It mentions analyzing 'multiple files' and 'batch related files', which loosely relates to AbsolutePaths, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic documentation.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'code analysis' with 'Panoramic Vision' to provide a 'bird's-eye view across multiple files', specifically optimized for Java/Spring. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing multi-file analysis with automatic dependency resolution and model expansion, unlike view_code_items or view_files_outlines which likely focus on single-file or structural overviews.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it recommends batching related files (e.g., Controller+ServiceImpl) in one call and explicitly advises NOT to read DTO/VO/Entity/Query files individually since they are auto-expanded when reading their consumers. This clearly differentiates usage from sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.