Access file content in a shared project by specifying a path, optionally limiting to a start and end line for focused reading.
Read the contents of a file in the shared project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative file path from project root | |
| end_line | No | End line number (1-based) | |
| start_line | No | Start line number (1-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden on its own. It implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose line-range defaults, behavior when no start_line/end_line is supplied, error handling for missing paths, or output format.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read') and clearly names the resource, making it appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
The tool is low complexity and the schema documents all parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description omits return format, line-range behavior, and failure modes, leaving a partial information gap for an agent invoking the tool correctly.
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 100%, with all three parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'Read' and a specific resource ('a file in the shared project'), clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like grep_content or search_files, but its scope is clear enough to avoid confusion with directory/list tools.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use read_file versus alternative content-access tools such as grep_content or search_files. The description states only what the tool does, not when to pick it over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.