Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IMALI Commander

IMALI Commander

Official
by IMALI-DEFI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

read_file

Read UTF-8 files up to 1 MB from a scoped workspace to inspect content before processing or editing.

Instructions

Read UTF-8 file in workspace (up to 1 MB)

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits beyond the schema: text is decoded as UTF-8 and content is limited to 1 MB. It does not say what happens for binary/non-UTF-8 files, whether oversize files error or truncate, or whether paths are workspace-relative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short clause with the resource and constraints front-loaded, and no filler. It is arguably over-terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but the wording itself is efficient.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the essentials of what it returns (file text) and the size ceiling are covered. The gaps are the path format and failure behavior at the size limit, which matter for correct invocation but are secondary for such a simple operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single `file` parameter, and the description adds no detail about its expected form (relative vs absolute path, whether it must already exist, encoding of special characters). The 'in workspace' phrase weakly implies scoping but does not resolve path syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read UTF-8 file in workspace') and adds a size bound. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as file_info or download_file, so an agent must infer which one returns contents versus metadata or a transfer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'Read' implies a non-destructive content-retrieval use, and the 1 MB cap hints at intended scope. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over file_info, download_file, or search_files, nor any stated precondition about the file existing.

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