Read multiple UTF-8 files in one MCP call to gather project context instead of making repeated individual file reads.
Read multiple UTF-8 files in one MCP call. Use this instead of repeated fs_read calls when gathering project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | ||
| maxBytesEach | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the UTF-8 encoding constraint and the single-call batching rationale, but says nothing about partial-failure behavior, per-file errors, or truncation via maxBytesEach.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the routing advice immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (per-file content vs. errors) and the maxBytesEach truncation semantics. For a batch tool where partial failures are likely, these omissions matter.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies a plural path input but never explains the paths array, and completely omits maxBytesEach — including that it silently caps per-file content — leaving the truncation parameter undocumented everywhere.
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 (multiple UTF-8 files) with explicit batch scope, and distinguishes itself from the fs_read sibling by framing the batch case. An agent can tell it apart from fs_read without opening the schema.
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?
"Use this instead of repeated fs_read calls when gathering project context" gives an explicit condition and names the alternative tool. It stops short of stating when a plain fs_read is still preferable, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.