Skip to main content
Glama
eva-wanxin-git

Windows Automation MCP Server

read_file

Retrieve file contents from Windows systems for automation workflows. Specify the file path to access text or data within files programmatically.

Instructions

读取文件内容

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes文件路径

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'read_file' tool. It asynchronously reads the file content using Node.js fs.promises.readFile and returns a structured response with success status, content or error.
    async readFile(filePath) {
      try {
        const content = await fs.readFile(filePath, 'utf-8');
        return { success: true, content, path: filePath };
      } catch (error) {
        return { success: false, error: error.message };
      }
    }
  • The tool schema definition returned by getToolDefinitions(), including name, description, and inputSchema specifying a required 'path' string parameter.
    {
      name: 'read_file',
      description: '读取文件内容',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          path: { type: 'string', description: '文件路径' },
        },
        required: ['path'],
      },
    },
  • Registration of the 'read_file' tool within the executeTool switch statement, which delegates to the readFile handler method.
    case 'read_file':
      return await this.readFile(args.path);
  • src/server.js:44-44 (registration)
    Instantiation of FileSystemTools class in the main server, which provides the 'read_file' tool among others.
    filesystem: new FileSystemTools(),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as file format support, encoding issues, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with the file system.

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?

The description is a single phrase '读取文件内容', which is very concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a file operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., text content, binary data) or address potential complexities like file permissions or size limits. Given the context, more information is needed to make this tool fully understandable.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as '文件路径' (file path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on path formats or constraints. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '读取文件内容' (Read file content) states the basic action (read) and resource (file content), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search_files' or 'write_file', making it somewhat vague in context. However, it avoids tautology by specifying the action beyond just the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'read_file' over 'search_files' for content retrieval or 'write_file' for file operations. The description lacks any context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eva-wanxin-git/windows-automation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server