Read a binary file from an allowed GitHub repository and return it as base64 (max 10 MB), while applying path denylists and size limits.
Read a file from a repo and return it as base64 (max 10 MB). Denied paths still apply; reads are not rate-limited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| branch | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does well: it discloses the base64 encoding, a 10 MB ceiling, that denied paths still apply, and that reads are not rate-limited. It omits what happens when a file exceeds 10 MB or is missing/inaccessible (error vs truncation).
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and size cap front-loaded ahead of the operational caveats. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Covers return format, size limit, permission inheritance, and rate limits, which is solid for a read tool with no annotations or output schema. Still missing branch selection semantics and failure behavior for oversized or missing files, which an agent needs to invoke it safely.
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 coverage is 0% and the description compensates for none of it: 'repo' is mentioned in passing, but owner, path, and especially the optional `branch` (default branch behavior is a real ambiguity for file reads) are never explained. All four parameters are undocumented in both places.
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 and resource ('Read a file from a repo') plus the return format ('base64') and a hard limit ('max 10 MB'). The read-vs-write split against siblings push_binary_file / push_binary_files / delete_file is inferable from the verb, but the description never names an alternative 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent gathers this is the way to fetch file contents. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no note that push_binary_file is the write counterpart, and no guidance on when to prefer a text-read tool over this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.