Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
siliconsmith-mcp

siliconsmith-mcp

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_file

Read-only

Reads project-relative text files, optionally by line range, returning content for inspection while refusing binary files.

Instructions

Read a text file from a project. path is relative to the project folder, for example 'test/test.py' or 'hdl/counter.py'. The text is returned in details.content. Give start_line and end_line (1-based, inclusive) to read part of a file. At most 64 KiB of text is returned per call; when a file is longer the result is cut and next_hints says which lines to ask for next. Binary files are refused.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
projectYes
end_lineNo
start_lineNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
detailsNo
summaryYes
artifactsNo
next_hintsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the 64 KiB response cap, that long files are cut and next_hints reports the next line range, that output lands in details.content, and that binary files are rejected. These are the exact behaviors an agent needs to plan chained reads, and none are derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action, then path semantics, then pagination and limits in a tight, ordered sequence with no filler. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Strong for a 4-parameter read tool with an output schema: truncation, line ranges, and binary refusal are all covered, so return values need no further explanation. The only omission is any statement about what project refers to (name vs ID).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameters; it documents path's relative-to-project semantics with concrete examples and start_line/end_line as 1-based inclusive. The project parameter is only implied by "from a project" and never explicitly described, leaving one small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a text file from a project") and implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_files or write_rtl by naming exactly what is produced. This is a clear read operation on file contents, not metadata.

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?

Explains the context of use (reading file text from a project folder) and includes an exclusion — binary files are refused — so an agent knows not to try it on binaries. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the scope is unambiguous without inference.

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