Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-bridge

mcp-bridge

by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

mcp_script_read

Reads a specified file from an agent’s scripts folder and returns its name and content, enabling script inspection and reuse.

Instructions

Read one file from agent's scripts/ folder. Returns {name, 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": {
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_script_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
agentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.30

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it does disclose the return shape ({name, content}), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for a missing file, whether the agent must be online, and any size limits, leaving real gaps for a mutation-free but filesystem-touching tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the return-shape disclosure covers the most important gap, but missing file-name format expectations and not-found behavior keep it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'agent' selects the agent whose scripts/ folder is read and 'name' is the single file within it, but gives no format guidance such as whether 'name' needs a file extension or a path — only partial compensation 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 one file') scoped to '`agent`'s scripts/ folder', which clearly separates it from mcp_script_list, mcp_script_write, and mcp_script_run. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls one step short of a 5.

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?

The verb 'Read one file' implies the caller already knows the file name (versus mcp_script_list for discovery, or mcp_script_run to execute), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage must be inferred from the verb and the 'scripts/ folder' scoping.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools