How do I use ripgrep-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ripgrep-mcp find all 'TODO' comments in the current directory" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

ripgrep-mcp

by shk1447

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Ripgrep MCP Server

An MCP server that provides ripgrep (rg) search capabilities to any MCP client such as Claude.

Overview

This server provides a Model Context Protocol (MCP) interface for the powerful ripgrep search tool. It enables Claude AI and other MCP-compatible clients to perform high-performance text searches across files on your system.

Related MCP server: Greply MCP Server

Prerequisites

Node.js (v18 or higher)
ripgrep (rg) command installed and available in your PATH. Install it with brew install ripgrep on macOS.

Usage with Claude for Desktop

To use this MCP server with Claude for Desktop:

Edit your Claude for Desktop configuration file:
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Add the following to your configuration:
```
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ripgrep": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "ripgrep-mcp@latest"]
    }
  }
}
```
Replace /path/to/ripgrep-mcp with the absolute path to where you cloned this repository.
Restart Claude for Desktop.

Available Tools

search

Basic search with ripgrep:

Pattern: error
Path: ./src

advanced-search

More advanced search with additional options:

Pattern: function
Path: ./src
FixedStrings: true
FileType: ts
IncludeHidden: false

count-matches

Count occurrences of a pattern:

Pattern: TODO
Path: ./src
CountLines: true

list-files

List files that would be searched without actually searching them:

Path: ./src
FileType: js

list-file-types

List all supported file types in ripgrep.

Security Considerations

This MCP server executes the ripgrep binary on your machine. It passes arguments directly to rg without shell command string construction, but you should still use caution when providing paths and patterns because searches run against your local filesystem.

License

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools

advanced-searchC

Advanced search with ripgrep with more options

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pattern`	Yes	The search pattern (regex by default)
`path`	Yes	Directory or file(s) to search.
`caseSensitive`	No	Use case sensitive search (default: auto)
`fixedStrings`	No	Treat pattern as a literal string, not a regex
`filePattern`	No	Filter by file type or glob
`fileType`	No	Filter by file type (e.g., js, py)
`maxResults`	No	Limit the number of matching lines
`context`	No	Show N lines before and after each match
`invertMatch`	No	Show lines that don't match the pattern
`wordMatch`	No	Only show matches surrounded by word boundaries
`includeHidden`	No	Search in hidden files and directories
`followSymlinks`	No	Follow symbolic links
`showFilenamesOnly`	No	Only show filenames of matches, not content
`showLineNumbers`	No	Show line numbers
`useColors`	No	Use colors in output (default: false)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions ripgrep but does not reveal important traits like performance impact, default behaviors (e.g., case sensitivity auto), or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with many configuration options.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the tool's purpose (advanced search with ripgrep). It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly expanded to include key differentiators without losing conciseness.

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 the complexity of 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the tool's advanced features, return format, or typical usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 15 parameters are described in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the parameter names and types, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description states it's an advanced search using ripgrep with more options, clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search' beyond implying more features, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over its siblings (count-matches, list-files, list-file-types, search), nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions.

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

count-matchesB

Count matches in files using ripgrep

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pattern`	Yes	The search pattern (regex by default)
`path`	Yes	Directory or file(s) to search.
`caseSensitive`	No	Use case sensitive search (default: auto)
`filePattern`	No	Filter by file type or glob
`countLines`	No	Count matching lines instead of total matches
`useColors`	No	Use colors in output (default: false)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It fails to disclose behavioral details such as regex handling, line count vs match count behavior, or output format.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could benefit from slight expansion to include core purpose, but it is efficient.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. Missing return format, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool counts matches in files and names the underlying engine (ripgrep). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' which likely returns matches rather than counts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'advanced-search'. No mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or limitations.

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

list-filesA

List files that would be searched by ripgrep without actually searching them

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Directory or file(s) to search.
`filePattern`	No	Filter by file type or glob
`fileType`	No	Filter by file type (e.g., js, py)
`includeHidden`	No	Include hidden files and directories

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key non-searching behavior, but lacks details on other behaviors like symlink handling or .gitignore respect, which would be expected from a ripgrep-based tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of sibling tools and 4 parameters, the description explains the core purpose well but lacks details about output format, filtering nuances, or potential limitations. Adequate but with gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds overarching context about ripgrep behavior but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists files that ripgrep would search, with the unique aspect of not actually searching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' which perform actual searches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for previewing search scope via 'without actually searching them', but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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

list-file-typesA

List all supported file types in ripgrep

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only enumeration with no side effects. For a simple list operation, this is transparent enough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by being informative yet brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, distinct siblings), the description fully conveys the tool's purpose without needing additional detail.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine since there are none.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'supported file types in ripgrep'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'list-files' by focusing specifically on file type enumeration.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

searchC

Search files for patterns using ripgrep (rg)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pattern`	Yes	The search pattern (regex by default)
`path`	Yes	Directory or file(s) to search.
`caseSensitive`	No	Use case sensitive search (default: auto)
`filePattern`	No	Filter by file type or glob
`maxResults`	No	Limit the number of matching lines
`context`	No	Show N lines before and after each match
`useColors`	No	Use colors in output (default: false)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions using ripgrep. It lacks details on side effects, ownership, or output behavior, though search is inherently read-only.

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?

The description is very concise with a single sentence, but it lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. Efficient but minimal.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return format, pagination, or limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, such as regex syntax or default values.

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?

The description clearly states the tool uses ripgrep to search files, with a direct verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'advanced-search', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'advanced-search' or 'count-matches'. The agent must infer usage 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.

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: basic search, advanced search, counting matches, listing files, and listing file types. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with hyphens (count-matches, list-files, list-file-types). 'search' is a single verb and 'advanced-search' is adjective_noun, but the pattern is still clear and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server covers core ripgrep features without being too narrow or bloated. The count is well-suited for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers search, counting, file listing, and file type listing. A minor gap might be the lack of a tool for grep-like context lines, but core workflows are well-supported.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

LLMemory
io.github.meir-may
Search your AI chat history (ChatGPT, Claude, Codex) from any MCP client. Remote, private, read-only
Search Knowledge & Memory
2
Dewey
com.meetdewey
Agentic search over your Dewey document collections from any MCP-compatible client.
Search Knowledge & Memory RAG Systems
2
HeyClaude — Claude & AI workflow directory A
io.github.JSONbored
Search the HeyClaude directory of Claude Code agents, MCP servers, skills, and tools.
Search AI & Machine Learning
282257
glasp
io.github.kazuki-sf
Search your Glasp web and Kindle highlights, notes, and AI memories from any MCP client. Read-only.
Note Taking Search
1

Related MCP Servers

MCP Ripgrep Server
Search Command Line File Systems
mcollina
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Provides ripgrep search capabilities to MCP clients like Claude, allowing high-performance text searches across files on your system.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-29 21:59 UTC)
5
1,018
74
MIT
Greply MCP Server
File Systems Shell Access Command Line
AnthonyRuffino
A
license
B
quality
C
maintenance
Enables file and directory searching through the greply CLI tool with configurable search options like context lines, case sensitivity, and pattern matching. Provides direct access to powerful grep-like functionality from MCP-compatible clients.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-11 02:41 UTC)
2
21
MIT
MCP Desktop Tools
Search File Systems Developer Tools
andrey-zhuravl
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables searching text across configured local workspaces using ripgrep. Provides secure text search capabilities within defined workspace boundaries through both MCP server and CLI interfaces.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-01-31 10:34 UTC)
MIT
Obsidian Vault Search for
Note Taking Search Knowledge & Memory
kpetrovsky
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables Claude to search and analyze Obsidian vault content using ripgrep with support for wiki links, backlinks, frontmatter properties, orphaned notes, and intelligent context detection showing which heading or property contains each match.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-10 18:36 UTC)
7
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shk1447/ripgrep-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server