Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stela-mcp

stela-mcp

by Sachin-Bhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_file

Reads a file's complete content with UTF-8 encoding support. Returns an error if the file does not exist or is not accessible.

Instructions

Read the complete contents of a file from the file system. Handles UTF-8 encoding. Fails if the path is not a file or not accessible. Only works within allowed directories:

  • /app

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
pathYesPath to the file to read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses UTF-8 handling, failure conditions, and directory restrictions, but omits return format (e.g., content as string) and behavior on large files.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, encoding, failure modes, and restrictions. Slightly lacking return type info, but generally complete given the context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage and the parameter description is clear. The overall description adds the allowed directories constraint, but no additional semantics beyond schema are provided.

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?

Description clearly states it reads the complete contents of a file from the file system, specifying UTF-8 encoding and constraints like failing on non-file or inaccessible paths. It distinguishes from siblings like write_file, get_file_info, and read_multiple_files.

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?

Description implies when to use (reading a single file's full content) and when not (fail conditions), but lacks explicit when-not statements or alternatives. However, the allowed directories and failure conditions guide usage.

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