Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCOOP MCP Server

OpenCOOP MCP Server

by Pajand
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_file

Access file content in a shared project by specifying a path, optionally limiting to a start and end line for focused reading.

Instructions

Read the contents of a file in the shared project.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative file path from project root
end_lineNoEnd line number (1-based)
start_lineNoStart line number (1-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools