Retrieve contents of a text file from a Nextcloud server by path, returning up to the first 200 KB for inspection or processing.
Read a text file (txt, md, json, csv, svg, …) and return its contents (first 200 KB)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path on the server |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 200 KB truncation, but says nothing about error behavior for missing paths, encoding assumptions, binary-file rejection, or permission requirements — notable gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the truncation limit attached inline. Slightly dense with the format list, but nothing wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the size cap, which is enough to call it correctly. However, with no annotations, it should also say what happens on missing files or binary input to be fully complete.
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 100% for the single `path` parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the server-side framing implicit in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Read) and resource (text file) and names the file types covered along with what is returned (contents). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_file_info (metadata) and download (transfer) without requiring the schema to be opened.
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?
The parenthetical list of text formats implies the appropriate use case (text-like files) but never states when to prefer this over download or get_file_info, nor does it warn about binary files. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.