Read text from a PDF or Word file in the caller's own upload directory.
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": {
"file_path": "<file_path>"
},
"name": "read_document"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral weight: it discloses accepted formats (PDF, Word) and an access boundary (only files in the caller's own upload directory). It says nothing about what happens on unsupported files, oversized documents, password-protected PDFs, or whether the returned text is complete or truncated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the scoping constraint both land immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it reads, from which formats, and from where. Missing return-value expectations (plain text vs. structured markup, truncation behavior) keep it short of complete.
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 0% and file_path has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. The 'in the caller's own upload directory' clause implies the path is relative to that directory, which is genuinely useful, but it never clarifies whether absolute paths, subdirectories, or other formats are rejected.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Read text from a PDF or Word file') with supported file types named. The 'caller's own upload directory' clause partially differentiates it from database-oriented siblings like get_database_document, but it never mentions ask_document, which reads the same kinds of files.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite close siblings such as ask_document and get_database_document. The upload-directory scoping is the only hint about when this tool applies.
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.