MCP-for-Stata

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_log

Extract contents from Stata .log or .smcl files in full, core, or dict formats, with optional first/last N line output.

Instructions

Read a Stata log file (.log or .smcl) and return its content. Supports full, core, and dict output formats. Use lines to return only the first/last N lines.

Tool call template

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_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lines`	No
`encoding`	No	utf-8
`file_path`	Yes
`output_format`	No	core

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.25.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, authentication needs, or constraints. However, the read nature is implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all informative, no wasted words. Front-loads purpose and adds details about formats and the lines parameter efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps in parameter meaning (encoding, file_path) and does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It describes output_format enum values and lines parameter but does not clarify encoding or file_path. The lines behavior (positive/negative for first/last) is ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it reads Stata log files (.log or .smcl) and returns content, with verb 'Read' and resource 'log file'. It distinguishes from siblings (get_data_info, help, stata_do) by specifying the file type and output formats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides basic guidance on output formats and lines parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use the tool vs. alternatives, nor when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not formalized.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server