Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Read File Base64

read_file_base64

Read a binary file as base64 for safe embedding or transfer, capped at 20 MB by default with an optional max_bytes limit.

Instructions

Read a (binary) file as base64. Capped at 20MB by default.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file_base64"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
max_bytesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 disclosure burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — a 20MB default cap — but leaves out whether exceeding the cap truncates or errors, what permission failures look like, and the ~33% size inflation from base64 encoding.

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?

Two short sentences with the key distinction and the size limit front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a 0%-coverage schema, but as a structure/concision matter it is clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions the definition should do more. Missing are cap-overflow behavior, error cases for unreadable files, and any hint about the path parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The '20MB by default' phrase maps loosely to max_bytes, but 'path' gets no format guidance (absolute vs relative, expansion) and the cap's enforcement behavior is unstated.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read a file') plus the output encoding ('as base64') and narrows scope to binary files, which implicitly separates it from read_file_text. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the binary-vs-text split from the parenthetical.

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 '(binary)' implies when this tool applies rather than read_file_text, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternatives. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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