Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
asistonto-mcp

asistonto-mcp

by R0DR0X
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

read_pack

Review or extend an existing question pack by reading it from disk and validating it.

Instructions

Read a pack from disk the way the live server does, and validate it. Use this to review or extend a pack that already exists.

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "read_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads 'the way the live server does' and validates, implying non-mutating behavior, but it does not detail what validation involves, error behavior, or whether any files are modified.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a clear use case. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema covers return values, but the description omits details about the expected pack structure, what validation includes, and how this relates to the sibling validate_pack tool. It is minimally viable but leaves important gaps for a tool with a single parameter and no annotation safety hints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, 'directory', has no schema description (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description fails to add any meaning about what the directory should contain or how to format the path, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading a pack from disk and validating it, with a specific verb and resource. It also provides a use case (review/extend existing packs) that distinguishes it from write_pack, though the overlap with validate_pack introduces slight ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Use this to review or extend a pack that already exists' gives explicit usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like validate_pack, but it provides clear enough direction for when to invoke this tool.

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