Search source code using ripgrep for exact or regex matches. Locate definitions, usages, strings, symbols, and keys across registered repositories.
소스 저장소 위 ripgrep 정확 매칭. 에러 문자열·심볼·설정 키의 정의/사용처를 찾을 때. repo는 kb.toml [code_repos]에 등록된 이름 (생략 시 전체). regex=false면 리터럴 매칭.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| regex | No | ||
| pattern | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that matching is literal when regex=false, that repo scope can be omitted for all repositories, and that matching is done via ripgrep. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format, but the primary behavioral expectations are covered.
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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then gives concrete use cases, and finishes with parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.
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?
The description is complete enough for a search tool: it covers purpose, scope, matching behavior, and repo handling. Since an output schema is indicated as present, not detailing return values is acceptable. Minor gaps like 'limit' semantics and regex=true behavior prevent a perfect score.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It explains 'repo' and 'regex', but does not explain 'pattern' or 'limit'. While 'pattern' is inferable from context and 'limit' has a default, two of four parameters are not explicitly described.
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 that the tool performs ripgrep-based exact matching over source repositories and specifies concrete use cases: finding definitions and usages of error strings, symbols, and configuration keys. This makes its purpose distinct from the more general sibling tools.
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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (for code-level symbol/string/key search) and explains key scoping options such as restricting to a registered repo or omitting it for all repos. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'search', but the source-repository and exact-matching framing implies the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.