Reads UTF-8 lines from a specified branch, commit, or layer using 1-based inclusive line ranges; refuses binary files and reports truncation or nextLine for pagination.
Read UTF-8 lines from a branch, commit or layer. Lines are 1-based and inclusive. Follow nextLine and inspect truncated/lineTruncated; binary files are refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| endLine | No | ||
| startLine | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: binary files are refused outright, output is UTF-8 line-based, and results may be truncated with a nextLine continuation token. It does not state size limits that trigger truncation, but the truncation signal itself is disclosed.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the paging/truncation caveat following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description names response fields (nextLine, truncated, lineTruncated) without describing their shape or how to resume a truncated read. For a paginated reader this leaves the caller to probe the response to use it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, with four bare parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'ref' is clarified as a branch, commit or layer, and startLine/endLine semantics are given (1-based, inclusive). It says nothing about the required leading-slash path format or what endLine defaults to when omitted.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: reading UTF-8 lines from a branch, commit or layer. That distinguishes it from listing/stat/grep siblings in intent, though it never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. fs_grep for pattern search).
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?
It gives operational guidance for the read itself ('follow nextLine', 'inspect truncated/lineTruncated') and a hard exclusion (binary files are refused), but it never says when to prefer this over fs_grep, fs_stat, or fs_list. Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.