Retrieve the contents of a file from allowed folders by providing the folder name and filename. Get needed text quickly for review or further processing.
Read the content of a specific file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Folder name containing the file. Available: documents, reports, desktop | |
| filename | Yes | Name of the file to read |
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 burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description gives no details about return format, encoding, error behavior, or side effects. It is acceptable for a simple read but minimal.
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?
Single sentence with no redundant words. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.
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 straightforward read tool with a well-defined schema and two clearly related siblings, the description is sufficient. The expected output—file content—is directly implied by 'Read the content'.
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%: both folder and filename are described, and folder includes an explicit enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('a specific file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools list_files and search_files. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.
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 intended context is clear: use this tool when you need the contents of a known file, rather than listing or searching for files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the contrast with siblings is implicit and strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.