ChatGPT2LocalBridge

by Harzva

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

Read File Range

code.read_range

Read-only

Retrieve a bounded range of lines from a file in a local project, enabling targeted code review or debugging.

Instructions

Read a bounded line range from one text file inside a project.

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "file": "<file>",
      "startLine": "<startLine>",
      "endLine": "<endLine>"
    },
    "name": "code.read_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectPath`	Yes
`file`	Yes
`startLine`	Yes
`endLine`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`startLine`	Yes
`endLine`	Yes
`totalLines`	Yes
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it reads a bounded line range, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose edge cases like what happens if startLine > endLine or if the file doesn't exist.

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?

Single clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal and leaves out usage guidelines and parameter details. Given that there is an output schema (reducing need to explain return values) and 4 required parameters, the description could provide more context about the range parameters or file path format.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description implies that 'startLine' and 'endLine' define the range via 'bounded line range', but provides no additional meaning for 'projectPath' or 'file'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds partial value.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Read a bounded line range from one text file inside a project.' It specifies the verb 'read' and the precise resource (bounded line range, one text file), distinguishing it from siblings like 'code.read' (reads whole file) and 'code.search' (searches content).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that reading the entire file should use 'code.read', or that searching across files should use 'code.search'. Missing context for tool selection.

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