workflow-atlas

by claudiu-deving

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

get_file

Retrieve raw files such as styles.css or index.html to access and design the app's visual appearance.

Instructions

Read a raw app file (e.g. styles.css, index.html, algorithms.html) to design the look.

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": "get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Read', implying no side effects, but lacks details on output format, authorization, or constraints. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with action and resource. Could benefit from a second sentence for parameter explanation but remains concise.

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?

With 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Lacks details on return value, path semantics, and error conditions. For a simple read tool, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, and description only hints at possible values via examples in parentheses. Does not explain path format, allowed values, or relative vs absolute paths.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (Read), the resource (raw app file), and provides specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files (listing) and set_file (writing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage context ('to design the look') but does not explicitly state when to use or when to use alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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