Gear

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project-search

Search project files for text or regex patterns. Find function usages, variable references, or TODOs with returned file paths and line numbers.

Instructions

[compact alias of search_project] Searches for text or regex patterns across project files. Use to find function usages, variable references, or TODOs. Returns file paths and line numbers.

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "project-search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectPath`	Yes	Absolute path to project directory containing project.godot. Use the same path across all tool calls in a workflow.
`query`	Yes	Search text or regex pattern (e.g., "player", "TODO", "func.*damage")
`fileTypes`	No	File extensions to search. Default: ["gd", "tscn", "tres"]
`regex`	No	If true, treats query as regex. Default: false
`caseSensitive`	No	If true, case-sensitive search. Default: false
`maxResults`	No	Maximum results to return. Default: 100

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1May 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the operation and output but does not mention safety, side effects, or error handling. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and output, and the schema covers parameters well. Missing: performance hints, path validation, but overall adequate for a search tool with no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.

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 it searches project files for text or regex, lists use cases (function usages, variable references, TODOs), and specifies the output (file paths and line numbers). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are class queries, project info, etc.

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 gives clear context: 'Use to find function usages, variable references, or TODOs.' However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though no sibling directly overlaps.

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