Retrieve targeted sections, line ranges, or full content from a Markdown file using heading paths, anchors, key paths, or line ranges to review AI-written documents.
Text of one part of a file: at = heading path A > B, #anchor, key path, lines L10-L40 | L10 (from line 10 on); no at = whole file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | Part to read. | |
| path | Yes | Project-relative path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scoping behavior for `at` and whole-file reads, but does not cover errors, missing parts, or return format beyond implying text.
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?
The definition is a single dense sentence fragment with no wasted wording. The most important scoping rule, no `at` means the whole file, is placed at the end where it is easy to retain.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical `at` semantics and whole-file behavior. It is nearly complete, though it lacks failure behavior and sibling differentiation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining `at` syntax with heading paths, anchors, key paths, and line ranges. `path` is not expanded beyond the schema, keeping it from a 5.
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?
The description makes clear that this returns text from a file, either a specific part or the whole file, which is more specific than the bare name `read`. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as `read_note` or `open`, so it stops 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?
It explains how `at` selects a part of a file and that omitting `at` reads the whole file, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of `read_note`, `open`, `search`, or other siblings. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.