Skip to main content
Glama
folder-index

folder-index

by git-raka

read_file_text

Retrieve extracted text from an indexed file by path and page through long documents using offset and length controls.

Instructions

Return the already-extracted text of an indexed file (path as shown in results, or an absolute path). Page through long files with offset.

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_file_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
lengthNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it usefully discloses that text is pre-extracted rather than freshly OCR'd, and that long files are paginated. It says nothing about behavior for unindexed/missing paths, permissions, or whether it ever triggers re-indexing — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler; the core purpose leads and the paging hint follows. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('Page through long files with offset') costs a bit of clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. However, for a file-read tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description should cover error behavior on unindexed paths and what `length` controls; those omissions keep it at minimum-viable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `path` semantics well (result-relative vs absolute) and explains `offset` as paging, but leaves `length` (default 4000, presumably page size) completely unexplained — a third of the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Return') and resource ('already-extracted text of an indexed file'), and the word 'already-extracted' implicitly separates it from refresh_index/ocr-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 parenthetical '(path as shown in results, or an absolute path)' implies this is a follow-up call to find_files/search_files, and 'Page through long files with offset' implies when to page. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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