Read a text file from a cPanel account using the full file path, enabling AI assistants to inspect contents for troubleshooting, review, or automation.
Read the contents of a text file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full file path to read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does 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 does not disclose encoding assumptions, behavior on binary or oversized files, permission/auth requirements, or what happens when the path does not exist — all material for a filesystem read.
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 short sentence with the resource and verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the single sentence does little work beyond the title.
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 full schema coverage this is minimally adequate. With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should still say something about returned content, size/encoding limits, or failure modes, and it does not.
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%, so the single 'path' parameter is already documented as 'Full file path to read'. The description adds only the 'text file' qualifier and no format, encoding, or path-resolution detail, 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 ('contents of a text file'), and the qualifier 'text file' usefully distinguishes it from binary handling. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_files, create_file, or edit_file, which an agent must infer from the name alone.
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 read-only intent is implied by 'Read', which is enough to separate it from create_file/edit_file/delete_file. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_files, nor any prerequisite (path must be absolute, file must exist) or error-condition guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.