Reads a text file from a Docker host over SSH or locally while hiding secret values and truncating oversized files for safe inspection.
Read a text file on the Docker host. Secret values are hidden.
Files that hold secrets (.env, *.env, keys, credentials) are never shown. Big files are cut (SERVER_MCP_MAX_FILE_KB, default 1024 KB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| as_root | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden and discloses important behavior: secret-bearing files are never shown, secret values are hidden, and large files are truncated by a named environment variable. It still omits permission requirements and what as_root changes, but the safety and truncation context is substantive.
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 short and front-loaded: action first, then security restrictions, then size limits. Every sentence adds operational value without unnecessary preamble.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers secret hiding and truncation. However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, it is not complete enough about path, host, and especially as_root behavior.
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 for all three parameters. It only loosely implies path and host via 'text file on the Docker host' and says nothing about as_root, leaving key invocation semantics undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: reading a text file on the Docker host. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as server_file_write, server_file_edit, and server_file_list.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Read a text file' and the sibling set makes the read-vs-write distinction obvious, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over server_file_list or how host/as_root affect selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.