Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git MCP Server

Git MCP Server

by EnesOzturk11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read the Small Local File

read_local_file

Read the complete content of a specific small-sized file in a local Git repository. Get full code context needed for writing accurate documentation.

Instructions

Reads the entire content of a specific small sized file. Crucial for understanding the full context of the code before writing documentation.

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": {
      "repoPath": "<repoPath>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "read_local_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesRelative file path to the file (e.g., src/index.ts)
repoPathYesGithub repository base path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature through the verb 'Reads' and adds the size limitation 'small sized file.' However, it does not elaborate on error behavior, output format, or any edge cases.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second states the purpose. No redundancy.

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 covers what it does and when to use it. However, given the sibling read_local_file_chunk, it would benefit from explicitly stating that this tool is for whole small files only and that chunked reading is for larger files.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Reads' and the resource 'entire content of a specific small sized file'. It distinguishes from the sibling read_local_file_chunk by emphasizing 'entire content' as opposed to chunked reads.

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 second sentence provides a clear use case: 'Crucial for understanding the full context of the code before writing documentation.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the sibling read_local_file_chunk as an alternative.

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