Bowmark web data: LinkedIn, Amazon, YouTube, Reddit, Airbnb, Instagram

Read a page's files (jig)

jig_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a jig's files with their byte sizes, or with path read one file's text. A page written as html is one file, index.html. Read before you edit a jig you did not just write.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`jigId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	False on an error.
`path`	No	With `path`: the file read.
`text`	No	Its text (fenced when the jig is someone else's).
`bytes`	No	Its size in bytes.
`files`	No	Without `path`: every file and its size in bytes.
`message`	No	Why the call failed, when `ok` is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "description": "Its size in bytes.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "files": {
+      "description": "Without `path`: every file and its size in bytes."
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Why the call failed, when `ok` is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "False on an error.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "path": {
+      "description": "With `path`: the file read.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "description": "Its text (fenced when the jig is someone else's).",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: listings include byte sizes, and an html page is stored as a single file named index.html. It does not cover error behavior for a missing path or how non-text files are handled.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary list behavior and its return detail come first, the optional single-file mode second, and the when-to-use rule last, giving a sensible front-loaded structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. The description covers both modes and the html-page quirk, which is the main non-obvious fact. It could say a bit more about what happens with an invalid path, but overall it is complete for the complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the key branching semantics of `path` (present = read one file's text, absent = list files) and ties `jigId` implicitly to the jig being read. It adds no format or validation detail, and the uuid nature of `jigId` is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List a jig's files with their byte sizes") and describes a second, conditional mode ("with `path` read one file's text"). The two modes are clearly delineated. However, it does not distinguish jig_read from similar-sounding siblings such as jig_get, jig_open, or jig_view, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: "Read before you edit a jig you did not just write," which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It also implies the branch condition for `path` (omit to list, supply to read one file). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for the cases where this tool is not the right pick.

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

All Bowmark web data: LinkedIn, Amazon, YouTube, Reddit, Airbnb, Instagram tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.