Skip to main content
Glama

read_files

Read files during penetration testing to analyze system data, configuration files, or security logs for vulnerability assessment and attack path discovery.

Instructions

read a file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'read_files' tool using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    @mcp.tool(name='read_files', description="read a file")
  • The handler function implements the logic to read the contents of a file given its path, handling errors and returning the content as string or None.
    def read_files(path: str | Path) -> str | None:
        try:
            if not path:
                raise ValueError("Path cannot be empty")
    
            file_path = Path(path).expanduser()
    
            if not file_path.is_file():
                raise FileNotFoundError(f"File does not exist: {file_path}")
    
            with file_path.open('r', encoding='utf-8') as file:
                content = file.read()
    
            print(f"File read successfully: {file_path}")
            return content
    
        except Exception as e:
            print(f"Error reading file: {e}")
            return None
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'read a file' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what gets read (e.g., content, binary data, metadata), whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but based solely on structure and brevity, it earns a high score as every word contributes directly to the core message.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (a file reading tool in a security testing context), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. 'read a file' doesn't mention the 'path' parameter or explain its semantics (e.g., what format the path should be in, if it's absolute or relative, or any constraints). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'read a file' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'read_files' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from any potential siblings or clarify what type of reading operation it performs (e.g., reading content, metadata, or permissions). While it includes a verb ('read') and resource ('file'), it lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and given the sibling tools list includes various security/penetration testing tools (e.g., 'get_project_directory_files'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YoussefSahnoun/PentestMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server