brain_readRead a single Brand Memory file, such as positioning.md, to retrieve stored brand context. Requires read scope.
Read one Brand Memory file. Needs the read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The file path, like positioning.md. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| updatedAt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely non-redundant fact — the required read scope (auth requirement) — but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing path or what the read returns beyond the output schema.
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 terse sentences with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though extremely minimal — there is no padding to trim, but also little structure to praise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a memory-read tool the description omits what a Brand Memory file is (path resolution, allowed set) and what happens on a missing path, leaving minor gaps.
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% with a single documented 'path' parameter including an example ('positioning.md'), so the description is not required to compensate. 'One Brand Memory file' adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Read) and resource (one Brand Memory file), which separates it from the mutating sibling brain_write. It does not, however, distinguish itself from brain_tree, which likely also surfaces memory content, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Needs the read scope,' which is an auth prerequisite rather than a condition for choosing this tool over brain_write or brain_tree.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.