Read the contents of a file the user has stored in Octopus. Small files (<=2 MiB) come back inline as base64 (or UTF-8 text for text/* MIMEs). Larger files return a short-lived presigned download URL the agent can fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_text | No | If true and MIME is text-like, return content as UTF-8 string instead of base64. | |
| file_id | Yes | FileID (UUID) from octopus.list / octopus.search. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description adds concrete details about inline base64/UTF-8 vs presigned URL behavior. Error cases are not mentioned, but this is not a significant gap.
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?
The description is brief, direct, and free of redundant information. Every sentence adds value about behavior or usage.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explains the two possible return formats and references the source tools for obtaining file_id, making it complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 100% and the description adds useful context: file_id originates from octopus.list/octopus.search, and as_text determines UTF-8 vs base64 return format.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'file in Octopus', and the inline-vs-URL behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like octopus_list, octopus_search, and octopus_write.
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?
Provides clear behavior for small vs larger files and points to octopus.list/octopus.search as the source for file_id. It does not explicitly contrast with all sibling read-like tools, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
