FileMCP

readFileTool

Read a file from the AgentFiles directory and return its contents as text, enabling safe access to local agent files within FileMCP.

Instructions

Reads a file from the 'AgentFiles' directory and returns its contents as text.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "readFileTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	The path to the file to read, relative to the 'AgentFiles' directory.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The contents of the file or an error message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses directory scoping and text return, which conveys a read-only nature. However it omits error behavior for missing paths, encoding/binary handling, and size limits.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope with zero 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a simple single-parameter read tool this covers purpose and scope adequately, though edge-case behavior remains unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents filePath fully. The description's 'relative to AgentFiles' framing mirrors the schema description rather than adding new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (reads), resource (a file), scope (from the 'AgentFiles' directory), and outcome (returns contents as text). This cleanly separates it from its write-oriented and listing siblings like createFileTool and listDirectoryTool.

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 use case is implied clearly enough for a read tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server