Box MCP Server

box_read_document

Read Box file content by file ID or path, returning text or base64, without saving anything locally.

Instructions

Read document content without saving locally

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "box_read_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Box file path to read (alternative to fileId)
`fileId`	Yes	Box file ID to read
`options`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 burden. It states a non-destructive read behavior ('without saving locally') but does not disclose output format (text vs base64), permissions/authentication needs, size limits, or whether any network call or side effect occurs. This is a meaningful gap in a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and key constraint are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

No output schema and no annotations leave the description responsible for explaining return values and invocation context. It only states 'read document content without saving locally'—it does not mention how to specify the file, what the response looks like, or that text/base64 can be chosen. An agent would not know what to expect when calling it.

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 67%, and all parameters have at least a brief description, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention that fileId and path are alternatives or that options.asText controls text/base64 output. The description fails to compensate for the moderate schema coverage gap.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'document content' plus the key constraint 'without saving locally', distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_save_documents and box_share_content. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 description implies the use case—reading content without persisting locally—but gives no explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, and does not mention any sibling alternatives. An agent has to infer from the name and siblings that this is for reading rather than saving, sharing, or analyzing.

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

Deploy Server