Skip to main content
Glama
DarkMatterProductions

mcp-project-context-server

by DarkMatterProductions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_adr

Retrieve a full Architecture Decision Record by number or filename, with path and SHA-512 hash for change detection.

Instructions

Read one ADR's full raw content by number or filename, tagged with its path and SHA-512 hash so reload_active_context_file can later detect changes. Prefer read_adr_section when you only need one section.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYesAbsolute filesystem path, a short 'owner/repo' identifier, or a full https:// repository URL.
number_or_filenameYesThe ADR's number (e.g. 12), short form (e.g. 'ADR-00012', case-insensitive), or exact filename/path (e.g. 'ADR-00012-topic.md').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool tags the content with path and SHA-512 hash for change detection, which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or side effects, leaving some ambiguity about permissions and mutability.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the hash tagging, and the alternative in the second sentence. No redundancy, every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple, and the description conveys that it returns full raw content plus path and hash, which is sufficient for a read operation. It could mention error behavior, but given low complexity and no output schema, it is adequately complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description merely summarizes the parameter behavior ('by number or filename') without adding new meaning. It meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas but adds no extra value beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the tool reads one ADR's full raw content by number or filename, and explicitly names the alternative `read_adr_section` for partial reads, distinguishing it from that sibling. It is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit guidance to prefer `read_adr_section` when only one section is needed, which is clear when-not guidance. It does not enumerate all alternatives but gives a concrete selection rule that an agent can act on.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools