Reads text file content within a locked root directory, supporting offset/limit pagination while capping size and detecting binary files to avoid sandbox escapes.
读取文本文件内容(上限 1MB / 2000 行,自动识别二进制)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses a 1MB/2000-line ceiling and automatic binary detection. However, it is silent on what happens when the cap is hit (truncation vs. error), how binary files are surfaced, and whether any permission constraints apply.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and appends constraints with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with three undocumented parameters and zero annotation coverage the definition leaves the offset/limit paging behavior and truncation semantics entirely to guesswork.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never mentions limit or offset, whose non-obvious defaults (limit=0, offset=1) beg for explanation. The stated 1MB/2000-line cap is a hard constraint, not an explanation of how those parameters control paging.
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 and resource (读取文本文件内容) and adds scope details (1MB/2000 line cap, binary auto-detection). It is clearly distinct from write_file by the read/write verb, but it never contrasts itself with search or list_dir, which also surface file content.
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 description implies the tool reads a file but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over search (content lookup) or list_dir (enumeration). There are no stated prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.