Retrieve the complete contents of any file from your private vault using its relative path, enabling AI agents to access notes, project details, and saved web pages for shared, versioned memory.
Devuelve el contenido completo de un archivo del vault (path relativo, ej. 'BRAIN.md').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns the complete file content and that the path is vault-relative, which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior, encoding, or explicitly confirm no side effects, though 'Devuelve' implies a read-only operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every piece of information — return value, scope, and path format — is useful and immediately accessible.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the action, the result, and the path convention. No additional context is required.
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?
The schema only lists 'path' with no description, so the description adds critical meaning: the path is relative and should be within the vault, with 'BRAIN.md' as an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a specific resource ('contenido completo de un archivo del vault'), and gives a concrete path example. This clearly distinguishes read_file from write/delete siblings.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool returns file content, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like list_vault or file_history, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.