Read the text content of KRL program or data files from the active IDE workspace to inspect code and configuration; requires the LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension.
Reads the text content of a KRL program or data file from the active IDE workspace. Requires LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative or absolute path to the KRL file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real prerequisite (requires the LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension) and frames the operation as a read of text content. It does not say what happens on missing files, non-text/binary files, encoding, size limits, or whether errors are raised or returned, which matters for an unannotated tool.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and scope front-loaded before the environment prerequisite. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the file domain, and the environment prerequisite; 'text content' also hints at the return shape. It is only slightly short on failure behavior and the workspace boundary, which are minor for a simple read.
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% and the single path parameter is documented there, including that it may be relative or absolute. The description adds no further path semantics (workspace-rooting, extension requirements, traversal limits), so it sits at the baseline expected when the schema does the work.
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 (Reads) and resource (text content of a KRL program or data file) and scopes it to the active IDE workspace, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling krl_workspace_files, leaving the read-vs-list distinction to be inferred from names.
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 by the mention of 'active IDE workspace' and the extension prerequisite, which signals when the tool is available. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives such as krl_workspace_files for enumerating files, and no note about what to do for files outside the workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.