Download a file
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": {
"id": "<id>",
"path": "<path>"
},
"name": "file_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond retrieval, such as where the file is downloaded, whether content or a file reference is returned, or any authentication or error behavior.
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 front-loaded and contains no unnecessary wording. However, its extreme brevity omits information needed for reliable selection and invocation, so this is under-specification rather than fully effective conciseness.
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 simple two-parameter read tool, the safety annotations help, but the undocumented required parameters and absence of an output schema leave important gaps. The description does not explain the file location, parameter roles, or the practical result of downloading.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the two required parameters but does not mention either. It remains unclear what id identifies, whether path is a source or destination, and how id and path relate.
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?
"Download a file" supplies a clear verb and resource, so the basic retrieval purpose is understandable. It does not clarify the source or scope of the download or explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as file_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?
The description implies only that the tool is used to download a file, which merely restates its purpose. It gives no prerequisites, when-not guidance, or conditions for choosing an alternative.
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.