mcp-server-code-assist

read_file

Read file content to access and analyze code or text within development workflows. Use this tool to retrieve file data for editing, reviewing, or processing in programming tasks.

Instructions

Reads file content

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": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Implementation Reference

src/mcp_server_code_assist/tools/file_tools.py:22-27 (handler)

Core implementation of read_file tool logic: validates path and reads file content.

async def read_file(self, path: str) -> str:
    path = await self.validate_path(path)
    try:
        return path.read_text()
    except Exception as e:
        self.handle_error(e, {"operation": "read", "path": str(path)})

src/mcp_server_code_assist/tools/models.py:22-23 (schema)
Pydantic input schema for the read_file tool.
```
class FileRead(BaseModel):
    path: str | Path
```

src/mcp_server_code_assist/server.py:110-114 (registration)

Registration of the read_file tool in MCP server's list_tools().

Tool(
    name=CodeAssistTools.READ_FILE,
    description="Reads file content",
    inputSchema=FileRead.model_json_schema(),
),

src/mcp_server_code_assist/server.py:171-174 (handler)

MCP call_tool handler for read_file, parses input and delegates to file_tools.read_file.

case CodeAssistTools.READ_FILE:
    model = FileRead(path=arguments["path"])
    result = await file_tools.read_file(model.path)
    return [TextContent(type="text", text=result)]

src/mcp_server_code_assist/server.py:24-24 (registration)
Enum definition for the read_file tool name.
```
READ_FILE = "read_file"
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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. 'Reads file content' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or isn't readable), performance characteristics, encoding considerations, or what 'content' specifically includes (e.g., binary vs. text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (a file operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, missing details on parameters, behavior, and output. For a tool that reads files, more information is needed to ensure correct usage.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('path'), the schema only indicates it's a required string. The description doesn't explain what 'path' represents (e.g., absolute vs. relative, file system specifics), its format, or any constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

The description 'Reads file content' clearly states the verb ('reads') and resource ('file content'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling read operations (like 'git_show' or 'git_diff' which might also read file content), and it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being read (e.g., metadata vs. content).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'git_show', 'git_diff', 'file_tree', and 'list_directory' that might involve reading file information, there's no indication of when 'read_file' is the appropriate choice versus these other tools.

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

Deploy Server