read_fileRead up to 10 MiB from an authenticated NotePom file as base64 without a signed storage URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| mimeType | Yes | ||
| sizeBytes | Yes | ||
| contentBase64 | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the 10 MiB size cap, base64 return encoding, authentication requirement, and the fact that no signed storage URL is needed. This is genuinely useful and does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then packs the key constraints—size limit, auth context, encoding, and URL behavior—into a compact, scannable structure.
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 single-parameter read operation with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: size limit, encoding, authentication, and the no-signed-URL mechanism. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the fileId parameter, but it never mentions fileId or explains how to obtain or format it. The parameter name is self-evident to some degree, but the description adds no direct semantic guidance for the only required input.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read up to 10 MiB from an authenticated NotePom file as base64.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_note or upload_file by emphasizing file content, base64 encoding, and the absence of a signed storage URL.
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 implies when to use this tool—reading file content directly—but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The authenticated-file and no-signed-URL context provides some orientation, but an agent must mostly infer the choice from the tool name and sibling context.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.