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. [requires a signed-in account]
| 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing concrete behavior: small files return inline base64 or UTF-8 text, large files return a short-lived presigned download URL, and a signed-in account is required. This gives the agent actionable expectations about response format and prerequisites.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting behavioral details following immediately. Every sentence earns its place: size-threshold behavior, inline vs. URL response, and the auth requirement.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive: inline content for small files, a presigned URL for large files, and the text/base64 distinction. The auth note and size threshold remove the main ambiguities an agent would face when invoking the tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions for file_id and as_text, though it does reinforce the text vs. base64 distinction. It correctly stays consistent with the schema without needing to compensate for missing parameter docs.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the contents of a file the user has stored in Octopus.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like octopus_list or octopus_write by focusing on reading file content. The behavior is unambiguous even without a title.
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?
The description makes the use case clear: retrieve the contents of a stored Octopus file. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is obvious and the schema reference to octopus.list/octopus.search indicates how to obtain the file_id. This is clear context without needing formal exclusion statements.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
