Skip to main content
Glama

read resource

native.read_resource
DestructiveIdempotent

Read by stable ID. auto returns current state and indexes of collections/history; full returns source detail; index pages an array. Expand an exact returned sourcePath inside the original resource JSON for details. Exact dependencies, whole-resource reviews and explicit passages preserve source detail and coverage. UTF-16 offsets are zero based; use the returned revision for edits.

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": {
      "work_id": "<work_id>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "expected_catalog_version": "<expected_catalog_version>",
      "read_skills": "<read_skills>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "native.read_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact required native skills and their dependencies, copied from the accepted session bootstrap's skills array. Include only entries in that array. General mcp.* guides and native.{studio}.instructions are guidance, not native skill proofs.
request_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor a new session, read a studios/{studio}/native/{pack} child toolset and copy invocation.catalog_version from a native tool descriptor. Do not use the top-level library version. For calls in an existing session, use that session proposal's catalog_version.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description presents this purely as a read ('Read by stable ID', 'returns current state', 'use the returned revision for edits'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. None of the destructive or state-mutating behavior is disclosed or cautioned about in the text. The only genuine behavioral additions are the zero-based UTF-16 offset convention and the coverage tracking implied by 'preserve source detail and coverage'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and dense with no filler, and the view semantics come early. However the middle sentence ('Exact dependencies, whole-resource reviews and explicit passages preserve source detail and coverage') is cryptic and reads as compressed internal jargon rather than a clear instruction, and the closing offset/revision note is tacked on.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, which relieves some burden. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with a nested arguments object and only 50% schema description coverage, the description leaves several parameters and one enum value unaddressed and never clarifies the resource domain. Adequate but clearly short of what this complexity demands.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description needs to carry real weight. It does explain view=auto/full/index and gives context for source_path, review_scope and expected_revision, but it omits the 'current' view entirely, and says nothing about limit, cursor, offset (beyond the zero-based note), page_size or purpose values. Meaningful but partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with 'Read by stable ID' and then explains what the auto/full/index views return, so the basic operation is discernible. But 'resource' is never defined (document? element? work? project?), and among many siblings such as native.read_document, native.read_element and native.search_resources there is no statement of what distinguishes this tool. The agent can guess the verb but not the object class.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Exact dependencies, whole-resource reviews and explicit passages preserve source detail and coverage' hints at when to pick purpose=exact_dependency or review_scope=whole_resource, and 'Expand an exact returned sourcePath' implies the follow-up read pattern. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to the read/search siblings, so routing must be inferred.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources