VERDICT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fs_find

Searches a disk image for files matching a name pattern, caching results for fast repeated access.

Instructions

Find files by name anywhere in a disk image (e.g. name_pattern="webshell" or ".php" or "access.log"). Builds and caches a recursive listing so repeated searches on a large disk are fast. Returns matching paths with their inodes for fs_cat.

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": {
      "image": "<image>",
      "name_pattern": "<name_pattern>"
    },
    "name": "fs_find"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image`	Yes
`name_pattern`	Yes
`offset`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes caching behavior and output format (paths with inodes). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention any destructive effects, and no contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence provides useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers key aspects: purpose, caching, output format. Missing explanation of the offset parameter, but overall sufficient for a search tool with output schema.

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?

Only name_pattern is partially explained with examples. image and offset are not described. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds files by name in a disk image, with specific examples of name_pattern values like 'webshell' or '.php'. Distinguishes from siblings like fs_list by mentioning recursive search and caching.

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?

Implies usage when you need to find files by name pattern, and mentions caching for repeated searches. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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