box_get_file_textDownload and return the text content of a Box (cloud storage) file by its file id. Best for plain-text, Markdown, CSV, and other text documents; binary formats (Office docs, PDFs, images) will return unreadable bytes. Content is capped at ~100,000 characters and flagged when truncated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | The Box file id of the file to read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "file_id": "555666777"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: binary files return 'unreadable bytes', content is capped at ~100,000 characters, and truncation is flagged. This goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences that lead with the core action and then cover boundary conditions (binary formats, truncation) without wasted words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter tool with strong annotations and a complete schema. The description covers scope, limitations, and truncation behavior, making it fully adequate for an agent to use correctly without an output schema or more complex context.
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?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter (`file_id`) with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description barely adds additional meaning beyond restating 'by its file id', which meets the baseline but does not elevate it.
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-resource pair ('Download and return the text content of a Box file') and clearly identifies the input required (file id). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `box_get_file` by focusing on text extraction and noting binary file limitations.
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 explicitly states the ideal use case ('Best for plain-text, Markdown, CSV, and other text documents') and warns against binary formats, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.
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 have distinct purposes, aided by detailed descriptions (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, some overlap exists among Pipeworx-based tools (compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) that could cause confusion without careful reading.
Snake_case is used, but naming patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others with nouns or prefixes (box_get_file, entity_profile). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
At 31 tools, the server covers an unusually broad set of domains (cloud storage, data queries, betting, memory, subscriptions). This is on the heavy side and could benefit from splitting into more focused servers.
Gaps exist: Box storage lacks create/update/delete, Polymarket tools offer analysis but no execution, and some data domains (e.g., weather) have only indirect coverage. The surface feels uneven across the wide scope.