Retrieve file contents by specifying the file path and optional encoding, enabling direct access to filesystem data for agents.
Read the contents of a file from the filesystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The path to the file to read. | |
| encoding | No | File encoding (default: utf-8) | utf-8 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It confirms the operation is a read, but does not disclose return format, behavior for missing files, permission requirements, or any other execution characteristics. This is a real gap 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?
A single clear sentence with no filler; the core action and target are front-loaded. It could not be meaningfully shorter without losing information.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is borderline sufficient, but it omits return format and error behavior. It also gives no cross-tool routing, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, so path and encoding are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable; baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file'), and specifies that it returns the file's contents, which distinguishes it from list_files/list_directory. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling write/delete tools, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 prefer read_file over sibling tools like list_files, list_directory, or write_file, nor any context about read-only workflows. The intended use is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.