Read a file from the connected device and return its contents as a base64-encoded data URI; decode it to access raw bytes.
Reads a file from the device and returns its content base64-encoded as data URI. Decode it if you need the raw bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute file path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious behavior: the content comes back base64-encoded as a data URI. However it says nothing about failure modes (missing file, unreadable path), permissions, or size limits on large files.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, and the return-format caveat is front-loaded immediately after the core action so the agent knows what it will get before deciding to call it.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must cover the return value, and it does via the base64/data-URI explanation. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error behavior for a bad path is left unstated.
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% and the single 'path' param is documented as an absolute file path, so the schema does the work. The description adds no path-format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (Reads) plus resource (a file from the device) and even the return encoding, which cleanly separates it from write_file, delete_file and list_files among the siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of a 5.
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 only guidance is 'Decode it if you need the raw bytes,' which is a hint about consuming the output rather than when to choose this tool over list_files or get_clipboard. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.