Read a UTF-8 text file from a Codebase project.
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": {
"projectId": "<projectId>",
"path": "<path>"
},
"name": "codebase_get_file"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encoding constraint (UTF-8), which is useful, but nothing about error behavior for missing files, binary files, permissions, or return format.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.
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 file-read tool with two undocumented required parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify path semantics (absolute vs relative to project root) and error behavior.
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% – neither projectId nor path are documented in the schema. The description says nothing about what projectId or path mean, whether path is relative to project root, or format expectations. Fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Read a UTF-8 text file from a Codebase project.' Clear and distinct from siblings like codebase_list_files. Doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the obvious read-file semantics.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs codebase_list_files or other alternatives. Just describes what it does, not when to reach for it.
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.