Search iCloud Drive for files and folders by name under a folder, matching substrings or glob patterns, and limit by depth or results.
Find items by name under a folder. Substring match, or a glob if the query has * ? [.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing matching semantics (substring vs glob when * ? [ appear), but it omits that this is a read-only operation, the recursive depth behavior (default 3), and any result-cap behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core operation front-loaded and the matching rule second. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves search scope (path, recursion depth) and result limits unexplained.
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. It clarifies query semantics well but says nothing about path (default empty), max_depth (default 3, i.e., recursive search), or max_results (default 100) – three of four parameters remain undocumented anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (items by name under a folder), which distinguishes it from read/write/upload siblings. It does not, however, draw an explicit line against icloud_list, the nearest neighbor.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by name' suggests it is the name-matching counterpart to icloud_list, but no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is named. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.