read_text_previewDecode and show the opening section of a remote text file over FTP/SFTP, auto-detecting UTF-8, UTF-8 BOM, or GBK within a set byte limit.
按 UTF-8、UTF-8 BOM 或 GBK 解码远程文件前缀，不返回完整连接信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 服务器虚拟绝对路径，以 / 开头；/ 表示配置的服务器 root。 | |
| server | No | 可选服务器别名；省略时使用默认服务器。 | |
| max_bytes | No | 预览字节预算；业务允许范围为 1 到 1048576。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes a read of a remote file prefix (with encoding detection), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. A preview/decode operation is inherently read-only, so the declared write-capability flag directly conflicts with the described behavior and could mislead the agent about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence, front-loading the decoding behavior. However, the trailing 'does not return full connection information' clause is cryptic and does not obviously serve the calling agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 explained, and the schema documents all three parameters. Still, for a tool with encoding selection, a server alias, and a byte budget, the description is minimal and leaves no usage context beyond the bare action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so path, server, and max_bytes semantics (absolute virtual path, default server, byte budget 1–1048576) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (decode) and resource (remote file prefix) with the encodings handled, and the title 'preview text file' anchors the intent. It is distinguishable from the CRUD siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent read tools like get_file_info or download_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing this over download_file / get_file_info, and no mention of prerequisites. The trailing clause about not returning connection info does not route the agent to or away from any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.