@achi/drive-mcp

read_file_text

Read a file from your Achi workspace as plain UTF-8 text, with a 1 MB cap. Get an error if the file is not text-encodable.

Instructions

Read a file as plain text, decoded as UTF-8. Convenience wrapper around read_file with a default 1 MB cap. Returns an error if the file is not text-encodable.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "read_file_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`maxBytes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: UTF-8 decoding, the 1 MB default cap, and error on non-text-encodable files. This goes beyond the schema by specifying encoding and error behavior, though it does not cover permissions or rate limits.

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 primary action. Every word adds value: purpose, encoding, wrapper relationship, cap, and error condition. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, encoding, cap, and failure mode. It lacks explicit parameter guidance, but the tool is simple enough that the schema's defaults and field names compensate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'default 1 MB cap', which indirectly relates to maxBytes, but it never explicitly describes what 'id' refers to or how maxBytes can be customized. The description adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema.

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 a file as plain text with UTF-8 decoding. It distinguishes itself from sibling read_file by positioning as a convenience wrapper with a default 1 MB cap, and from read_thumbnail by focusing on text.

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?

The description implies when to use it: as a convenience wrapper around read_file with a default cap. It also indirectly warns against binary usage by stating it errors on non-text-encodable files. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for binary or other file types, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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