Read PDF, TXT, DOCX, MD, and JSON files with metadata to extract document content for analysis. Use file_path to access files through MCP Filesystem Server.
Read PDF, TXT, DOCX, MD, JSON files with rich metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to the file to read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at 'rich metadata' without describing the return shape. It says nothing about encoding, file-size limits, binary handling, error behavior for unsupported formats, or permission requirements.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and supported formats appear immediately. It is efficient, though the trailing 'with rich metadata' phrase is somewhat vague rather than informative.
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 tool with no output schema and low complexity, this is roughly adequate. Missing behavioral detail (error handling, size limits, metadata contents) is somewhat excused by the tool's simplicity but leaves gaps an agent would benefit from.
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% for the single file_path parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no path format or relative/absolute semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('files') and enumerates supported formats (PDF, TXT, DOCX, MD, JSON). It implicitly distinguishes itself from write_file, list_files, and search_in_file by being the content-retrieval tool, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_in_file (reading to search vs reading to view) or how it relates to batch_process. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no context for choosing this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.