leer_archivoReads authorized workspace files in chunks of up to 2 MiB, with optional offset, format, and checksum controls to safely inspect large files without reading them entirely.
Lee archivos autorizados por fragmentos de hasta 2 MiB. La huella completa puede omitirse para evitar recorrer archivos grandes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruta | Yes | ||
| formato | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| offset_bytes | No | ||
| incluir_sha256 | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: reads are chunked at 2 MiB, and the full fingerprint (sha256) can be skipped to avoid traversing large files. That is real context beyond the annotations.
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 tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and the size constraint. Efficient, though it leaves no room for the missing parameter meaning.
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?
For a 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin: pagination via offset_bytes, output format via formato, and the base64/texto distinction are never explained, and return shape is unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at two of the five parameters (max_bytes via 'hasta 2 MiB', incluir_sha256 via 'huella completa'). ruta, formato, and offset_bytes remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (lee) and resource (archivos) plus a scoping detail (fragmentos de hasta 2 MiB). The read operation is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the write/delete siblings, though it never explicitly names a sibling it should be preferred over listar_archivos or modificar_archivo.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listar_archivos, and states no prerequisites (what makes a file 'autorizado'). The chunking detail is a behavioral fact, not usage-direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.