Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chatgpt-local-coding-agent

chatgpt-local-coding-agent

by everlastingQAQ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fs_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a bounded text range from a file by specifying platform, path, and optional start/end lines. Sensitive ranges trigger review instead of returning content.

Instructions

Read a bounded normal text range. Sensitive ranges return review_required and no content.

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fs_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
distroNo
line_endNo
platformYes
line_startNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about sensitive ranges returning review_required and no content, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No fluff.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists. The description explains the sensitive range behavior but does not cover parameter details or return format beyond that. Given the complexity, it is adequate but has gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'bounded normal text range' implying line_start and line_end, but does not explain platform, path, or distro semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool reads a bounded normal text range, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_stat and fs_list by focusing on reading file content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage for reading text files within a line range, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The mention of sensitive ranges returning review_required gives some context but not enough for clear guidance.

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