Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Genio520 ISP MCP

Genio520 ISP MCP

by eric612
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

read_source_file

Read-only

Access specified UTF-8 source files within the local workspace. Retrieve the file's SHA256 checksum to verify content integrity and prevent conflicts.

Instructions

Read one allowed UTF-8 source file, including its SHA256 for conflict checking.

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_source_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation: only 'allowed' files can be read (implying an access whitelist and possible failure for disallowed paths), UTF-8 encoding constraint, and the return of a SHA256 hash for conflict checking.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the SHA256 clause earns its place by explaining why the hash is returned. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the gist but leaves the path semantics and the failure mode for disallowed files unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It only hints that the path must point to an 'allowed' file; it does not say whether the path is relative or absolute, what the allowed roots are, or how invalid paths behave.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one allowed UTF-8 source file), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling list_source_files (plural) and edit_source_file (write). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the singular/read framing makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, but 'including its SHA256 for conflict checking' implicitly signals the read-before-edit/commit workflow involving edit_source_file and commit_candidate. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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