Read a file's content, or get a download URL for large/binary files. Pass version to read a historical version instead of the current one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File to read, relative to the workspace root, e.g. notes/todo.md. | |
| version | No | Version number from history. Defaults to the current version. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace slug. Optional, defaults to "temp". |
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, and the description adds useful behavioral context: large/binary files yield a download URL rather than inline content, and version can target a historical snapshot. It does not fully disclose error handling or URL characteristics, but with annotations present the added context is sufficient.
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, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently covers content reading, binary/large-file behavior, and version selection without unnecessary fluff.
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?
Given the simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the main return modes (content vs download URL) and version handling, though it leaves minor details like error cases or URL expiration unaddressed, which are not critical for this tool's complexity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by clarifying the version parameter's effect ('read a historical version instead of the current one'), but this mostly restates what the schema already provides ('Version number from history. Defaults to the current version.').
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 clearly states the tool reads a file's content or provides a download URL for large/binary files, which is a specific verb+resource purpose. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list and grep by focusing on content retrieval and explicit download URL handling for large/binary 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?
The description gives clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool: for reading content and for obtaining download URLs when files are large/binary. It also explains the optional version parameter for reading historical versions, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: file CRUD (write, read, edit, delete), versioning (history, restore), search (grep, list with q), locking (lock, unlock), uploads (request_upload, finalize_upload), and activity tracking. Even similar tools like request_upload and finalize_upload are complementary rather than overlapping.
Tool names are lowercase and action-oriented, with single-word verbs (read, write, delete) and two compound verbs (request_upload, finalize_upload) following a verb_noun pattern. This is consistent enough to be predictable, though the mix of single words and compound words is a minor deviation.
14 tools is well-scoped for a versioned file management server. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the domain—file operations, version control, search, locking, uploads, and activity—without unnecessary bloat or missing critical functionality.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of file management: create/write, read, edit, delete, restore, list, search, lock, unlock, upload/download (via request_upload/finalize_upload and read's download URL). The only potential gap is a copy operation, but that can be achieved with read+write. All workflows have no dead ends.
