ryns-code-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Grep

grep

Search file contents recursively with ripgrep regex, glob, case-insensitive, and context options to find matching text across project files.

Instructions

Search file contents recursively with ripgrep regex, glob, case and context support.

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": "grep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`glob`	No
`path`	No	.
`context`	No
`pattern`	Yes
`ignore_case`	No
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about default result caps, truncation of results at max_results, whether .gitignore is respected (a meaningful ripgrep behavior), binary file handling, or error behavior on bad regex. Only 'recursively' adds real behavioral information.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core capability is stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the specification gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

A six-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema needs considerably more explanation than one sentence. The agent cannot learn result limits, path defaults, or output shape from any supplied field.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it alludes to pattern, glob, ignore_case ('case'), and context, but adds no syntax, default, or range meaning. The 'path' and 'max_results' parameters receive no mention at all.

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 ('Search file contents recursively') plus the underlying engine (ripgrep), which tells an agent this is content search rather than path search. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_files', so disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as 'search_files' or 'read_file'. The phrase 'recursively' hints at scope but gives no instruction on choosing this tool over its siblings.

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