Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
3dBlock Studio

3dBlock Studio

by TheGivingCircuits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

read_file

Read-only

Reads a single 3dBlock Studio episode file by slug and filename so assistants can inspect scripts, scenes, audio, or renders before editing.

Instructions

Read one file of an episode.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
slugYesepisode slug, e.g. the-cursed-tape (or an example slug for read-only tools)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether the file must already exist, what happens for a missing file, or how the response is shaped, which is the extra context the annotation bar expects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than economical — brevity comes at the cost of the details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Two required parameters, no output schema, and an undocumented 'file' argument. For a retrieval tool the description should say what a file identifier looks like and that the episode must exist; neither is present, leaving real gaps for the caller.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: the slug parameter is documented but the 'file' parameter has no description anywhere. At this coverage level the description should compensate by explaining what 'file' accepts (path? filename? extension?), and it does not.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one file of an episode"), which contrasts implicitly with the write_file sibling, but "file" is left undefined in a domain where files could be scripts, notes, or assets. The agent knows what action happens but not what object it is fetching.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus read_episode or write_file, both of which operate on the same episode-scoped content. The only differentiation is the word "one", which is too implicit to route an agent reliably.

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