gemini-cli-bridge

by chaodongzhang

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Readfile

ReadFile

Read a UTF-8 text file and return its contents; raises an error if the file is missing, ignoring decoding errors.

Instructions

Read a text file (utf-8, ignore errors). Raises if missing.

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": "ReadFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose several real traits: utf-8 encoding, errors are ignored, and a missing file raises. However, it leaves permissions, size limits, and directory-path handling unstated, and 'ignore errors' is ambiguous about what errors are being swallowed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and zero filler. Every clause (encoding, error policy, failure mode) adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and for a one-parameter read tool the description covers encoding, error handling, and the missing-file failure mode. Only the path parameter's semantics remain unaddressed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never names or characterizes the single 'path' parameter. 'Read a text file' weakly implies the path targets a file rather than a folder, but nothing is said about relative vs absolute paths or expected format, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a text file', with added scope qualifiers (utf-8, missing-file behavior). An agent can tell it apart from WriteFile/Edit, but the description never distinguishes it from the other read-oriented siblings (ReadManyFiles, ReadFolder, Shell), which is the main ambiguity for a file-reading tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'a text file' weakly implies single-file scope, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over ReadManyFiles for multiple files, ReadFolder for directories, or Shell for binary/other content.

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