ryns-code-mcp

by rayenking

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

Search Files

search_files

Find files by matching ripgrep glob patterns, letting you locate files by name or extension within a directory path.

Instructions

Find files using ripgrep glob patterns.

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": "search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`pattern`	Yes
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether ripgrep's .gitignore/hidden-file filtering applies (a significant behavioral trait of ripgrep), what the default cap of 500 results means for truncation, or what the results look like.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, the terseness crosses into under-specification for a three-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions.

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?

Given zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter context and it supplies almost none of it. An agent cannot determine result format, truncation behavior, or scope of matching from this definition.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. "Glob patterns" adds meaning to the required pattern parameter, but path (defaulting to ".") and max_results (default 500, max 5000, with truncation implications) are never mentioned.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Find files using ripgrep glob patterns" gives a verb and resource plus the underlying mechanism, which is better than a tautology. But it leaves a critical ambiguity unresolved: whether this matches file paths/names or file contents, which is exactly the distinction that separates it from the sibling grep. It also does not distinguish itself from list_directory or directory_tree.

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 guidance at all, no statement of when to prefer this over grep, list_directory, or directory_tree, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the tool's role from the name alone.

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