Count matches for up to 20 semantic file queries in one call without returning rows, so you can compare formats or check if files exist under a folder.
Count matches for up to 20 queries in one call (no rows returned), e.g. compare 'ext:pdf' vs 'ext:docx' under a folder, or check whether a file exists anywhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | ||
| match_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: results are counts only ('no rows returned') and there is a hard limit of 20 queries per call. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination/truncation of counts, or what match_path changes behaviorally.
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 that leads with the core capability and limit, followed by compact illustrative examples. No filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.
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 2-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers the count-only return and batching limit adequately, so return values need not be explained further. The gap is match_path, which is undocumented anywhere, leaving an agent unable to reason about path-vs-name matching.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value for 'queries' by documenting the 20-query cap and showing query syntax ('ext:pdf'). But the match_path boolean is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undefined in both schema and description.
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?
States a clear verb (count) and resource (matches for queries) and explicitly contrasts with the row-returning sibling by noting '(no rows returned)', which is exactly what distinguishes it from everything_search. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
Gives two concrete usage scenarios (comparing 'ext:pdf' vs 'ext:docx' under a folder, checking whether a file exists anywhere) that make the intended context clear. It does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly route to everything_search for row data, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.