Search a directory tree to find files or directories by name, with optional type and result limit. Reports unavailable on OpenCode 2.x servers missing /api/fs/find.
Find files/directories by name. NOTE: 2.x server has no /api/fs/find route, so this reports unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| directory | No | ||
| searchDirectory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important limitation (unavailable on 2.x server), but says nothing about permissions, success behavior, error handling, or return format.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a critical operational note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is very brief and leaves most parameter semantics undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it without schema guessing.
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% for 5 parameters. The description only implies that 'query' is the name to search for; it does not explain 'directory', 'searchDirectory', 'limit', or the enum values for 'type'.
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 ('Find') and resource ('files/directories') with a clear scope qualifier ('by name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_find_text (content search) and opencode_find_symbol (symbol search).
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 implied: use this when searching for files/directories by name. The note about the 2.x server lacking the route adds a when-not condition, but no alternative tool is named for that case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.