Read a text file from inside a JAR archive to inspect Java game configs, resource files, or embedded data during modding. Supply a session ID and the file path within the JAR.
Read a text file from the JAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | File path within JAR | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and a text-only scope, but never states whether a session must be open, what happens on binary input, error behavior, or size limits for a file-read operation.
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?
A single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits session requirement, return content, and text-vs-binary handling. It is minimally adequate given the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so both session_id and file_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the file_path format or session context beyond the schema's own text, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a text file from the JAR'), and the 'text file' qualifier implicitly separates it from jar_read_class and jar_hex_view. However it never names an alternative, so the differentiation from siblings is inferred rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent can only infer usage from the name and the 'text file' hint; there is no routing information to distinguish this from jar_read_class, jar_hex_view, or jar_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.