Reads a file's header bytes, size, SHA-256 hash, and candidate converters from configured read roots or workspace to verify and analyze MGSV mod files.
Read header bytes, size, SHA-256 and candidate converters for a file in configured read roots or workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the exact payload returned (header bytes, size, SHA-256, candidate converters) and constraining input to configured read roots or workspace — information the agent cannot get from the annotations or the empty schema.
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?
A single dense sentence with the action and its outputs front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (header bytes, size, SHA-256, candidate converters, scope) carries distinct information.
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 read-only inspection tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return payload and input scope well. It omits error behavior (missing file, path outside read roots) and any size limits, which are minor gaps for this tool class.
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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the path resolves against configured read roots or workspace, but it adds no format, extension, or relative-vs-absolute detail beyond that.
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 names a specific verb (Read) and resource (file) and enumerates exactly what is returned: header bytes, size, SHA-256, and candidate converters. That distinguishes it from siblings like read_workspace_text (text contents) and hash_game_path (game-path hashing), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
"for a file in configured read roots or workspace" states scope, not when-to-use. The implied use case (probe a file's type/metadata before reading or converting it) is inferable but never stated, and no sibling such as read_workspace_text or hash_game_path is offered as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.