gemini-cli-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Readmanyfiles

ReadManyFiles

Read multiple files in one call and return a JSON object mapping each path to its content; missing paths can be ignored.

Instructions

Read multiple files; return JSON object {path: content}.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "ReadManyFiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	Yes
`ignore_missing`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 discloses the read operation and JSON return, but says nothing about missing-file behavior, permissions, or the ignore_missing flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It has no filler, though it omits necessary parameter detail rather than being bloated.

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

Completeness2/5

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 needn't be fully explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves ignore_missing semantics and error behavior unaddressed.

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% for two parameters. The description implies paths is a list of files but never explains ignore_missing or its default true behavior.

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 'Read' and resource 'multiple files', and notes the return shape. It distinguishes itself from ReadFile by scope, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like ReadFolder or FindFiles.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternative tools named, and no conditions such as when to prefer it over ReadFile or ReadFolder. Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'multiple files'.

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