Skip to main content
Glama

Get free-form text

get_txt

Read and parse a free-form text document by ID, returning frontmatter and body; optionally return the raw body verbatim with line windows and numbering for editing.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full free-form text document (frontmatter and body) by its id. Pass raw=True to return the frontmatter-stripped body text verbatim instead. With raw=True, optional read-style offset/limit window the raw read: offset (1-based, default 1) is the first body line to return, limit (line count, default through end of body) how many; out-of-range values clamp (offset > N returns the empty string), and coordinates with raw=False raise ValueError. A document that exists but fails to parse returns a ParseFailureResult (error/path/id) instead of raising; its error text is byte-identical to the domain's own list tool's failed-row error for the same file (identical field path and cause, including the trailing pydantic documentation line; ADR 9080b37c-82b3-4f63-81f1-79641d0bf14c). An invalid id (path-injection attempt or wrong format) is also a ValueError, raised before any file access. With raw=True, an optional numbered=True prefixes every returned body line with its 1-based absolute body-line number in the "<n>: " form (plain decimal, no padding) -- under offset/limit windowing the numbers start at the clamped offset and never restart at 1, so a number seen in the output can be fed straight back into the generic update tool's offset. numbered is meaningful only with raw=True: combining it with raw=False raises ValueError (like offset/limit), and a numbered read of a document that fails to parse returns the ParseFailureResult described above, never numbered text. Numbered output must never be fed back verbatim into content for update or create_txt -- strip the "<n>: " prefix from each line first (it is likewise never a valid edit old_str). The optional language parameter (default 'en') selects the language variant to read: omitted/'en' = the flat docs/txt/ document, exactly the default behavior; any other ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase two-letter code (e.g. 'de') = that language's variant at docs/txt/{language}/ (the EN source's exact basename). The language is shape-validated before any file access (a path-injection-shaped payload is a ValueError, like an invalid id), and a shape-valid language without a packaged heading-mapping table is rejected up front with an actionable ValueError, also before any file access. A raw=True read of a variant returns the variant's on-disk body verbatim (translation preserved); a raw=False read parses it through the variant's heading table, so the structured model holds canonical heading text. The ParseFailureResult error of a broken variant is byte-identical to list_txt(language=...)'s failed row for the same file.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
rawNo
limitNo
offsetNo
languageNoen
numberedNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.38.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses that unparseable documents return a ParseFailureResult instead of raising, that invalid ids and language shape violations are ValueErrors raised before any file access, that out-of-range offset/limit clamp rather than error, and that missing heading tables are rejected up front. It even specifies byte-level error parity with list_txt's failed rows, which is unusually rich disclosure for a read tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core behavior is front-loaded in sentence one, but the remainder is a single dense paragraph of em-dash-nested clauses with an embedded ADR hash, and the ParseFailureResult contract is restated twice (once generally, once for variants). The information earns its place, but the lack of bullet/segment structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps thoroughly: failure modes, clamping, validation ordering, language variant resolution, and cross-tool contract parity. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret a ParseFailureResult; return-value shape is covered by the output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: id validity rules (path-injection/wrong format), raw's effect on returned payload, offset as 1-based first body line with clamping behavior, limit as line count defaulting through end of body, numbered's exact "<n>: " format and non-restarting numbering under windowing, and language's ISO 639-1 shape plus docs/txt/{language}/ path semantics. Every one of the six parameters gains meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Read, parse, and return a full free-form text document (frontmatter and body) by its id," and immediately distinguishes the raw read variant, which separates it from a plain parse/read flow. It also names the sibling it interacts with (list_txt for error-payload parity, update/create_txt for the numbered-output caveat).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete selection rules at the parameter level: raw=True for verbatim body, raw=False for parsed structured model, language variants explained, and explicit prohibitions (numbered only with raw=True, never feed numbered text into content or edit old_str). What it lacks is a direct statement of when to prefer get_txt over parse_txt or get_txt_example/get_txt_schema siblings, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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