Echo RunPod

Echo Read

read

Read-only

Access local files, directories, or one exact SDK capability record, including registration state, to inspect RunPod control-plane details.

Instructions

Read a local file/directory or read one exact SDK capability record (includes registration_state).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`id`	No
`path`	No
`target`	No	file
`max_bytes`	No
`capability`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that an SDK capability read returns registration_state, which is useful content context, but it says nothing about max_bytes truncation behavior or what a directory read returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, though the dual-purpose phrasing ('or read one exact SDK capability record') is dense and slightly ambiguous about which parameters select which mode.

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

Completeness2/5

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 described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the parameter disambiguation and truncation behavior unexplained, which is not enough for an agent to call it reliably.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails. It hints that 'path' serves file/directory reads and that 'id'/'capability'/'target=sdk_cap' serve capability reads, but it never explains the id-vs-capability distinction, the target enum default, or what max_bytes (default 262144) truncates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (read) and two distinct resources: a local file/directory and a single SDK capability record. This differentiates it from the sibling invoke_sdk_cap (an action, not a read) and implicitly from search, though it never explicitly contrasts with search or write.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion. The phrase 'one exact SDK capability record' hints at exact-match lookup versus search, but the agent is left to infer that routing decision on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server