lsth-mcp

file_read

Read supported files (xlsx, pdf, csv, json, docx, txt) by path, with optional page and sheet selection to extract specific data.

Instructions

Đọc bất kỳ file nào được hỗ trợ: xlsx, pdf, csv, json, docx, txt.

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": "file_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`limit`	No
`pages`	No
`sheet`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation and the format list adds useful scope. However, it does not mention output behavior, error cases, size limits, or how formats are parsed beyond the verb itself.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It immediately states the action and then the supported scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter explanations, a one-line description is inadequate. While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description omits important invocation context such as when to use it, what the optional parameters control, and how unsupported files are handled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (path, limit, pages, sheet). It only lists supported file formats, which indirectly hints at pages and sheet but does not add explicit meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and defaults.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Đọc' / 'read') with a clear resource ('file') and enumerates supported formats: xlsx, pdf, csv, json, docx, txt. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools (file_write, csv_write, excel_write, json_write) and listing tools (file_list, file_tree), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for reading file contents and lists supported formats, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like file_search or file_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is present but left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server