Read text files in Seafile; for binary files, return metadata and a download link.
Read a text file. Binary files return metadata + download link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| repo_token | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the binary-file fallback behavior, which is useful, but it omits critical details such as the max_chars truncation effect, authentication/token requirements, or any side effects. The description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is appropriately concise, but it under-specifies the tool. It front-loads the primary purpose but lacks the detail needed for correct usage. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity works against completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of optional parameters (repo_id, tokens, library_name, max_chars) or any return-value details beyond the binary fallback. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the parameters (path, max_chars, tokens, etc.), leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names. The description adds no semantic value to any parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a text file, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a note about binary file behavior (metadata + download link). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_file_detail or get_download_link, which could overlap in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for reading file contents as opposed to getting metadata or download links, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.