Search indexed codebases for patterns or literal snippets to locate definitions, usages, and dependencies. Limit results to focus code exploration.
Search for code patterns or literal snippets across the indexed content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 10). | |
| pattern | Yes | Text or pattern to search for in code content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, result format, pagination, whether pattern supports regex, or any safety profile. Only the basic action is stated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves no room for structured guidance; structure is clean but minimal.
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?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage alternatives, behavioral traits, and result characteristics, leaving the agent without enough context to select it confidently among many siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minor context by mentioning literal snippets and indexed content, but does not explain pattern syntax (regex vs literal) or limit behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('code patterns or literal snippets') and scope ('indexed content'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like axon_pro_query or axon_pro_cypher, so it cannot earn a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not say when to choose this tool over axon_pro_query, axon_pro_cypher, or other search-related siblings, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.