Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-finder-mcp

git-finder-mcp

by dudckd6744
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_file

Retrieves and returns the complete contents of a file from a registered project path, so you can inspect the full code behind search results.

Instructions

특정 파일의 내용을 읽어 반환합니다. 검색 결과에서 발견한 파일의 전체 내용을 확인할 때 사용합니다. 등록된 프로젝트 경로 내의 파일만 읽을 수 있습니다.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes읽을 파일의 절대 경로

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key constraint: only files within registered project paths can be read, which is valuable. It does not mention error handling or return format, but for a read-only operation this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences: first states the action, second gives usage, third gives a limitation. No redundant information, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, and constraints sufficiently. The sibling tools have different functions, so no further context is needed.

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?

The input schema already describes 'path' as an absolute path, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond referencing a 'specific file', so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'reads and returns' with the resource 'specific file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code and get_file_tree. It also adds context about checking full contents of files from search results.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: to check the full contents of a file found in search results. It also mentions the constraint of only registered project paths, implying not for external files, but doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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