Read Kodi-relative text files up to 600 KB with redaction and SHA-256 verification. Use to inspect logs or configs safely without exposing sensitive data.
Read a Kodi-relative text file (600 KB max) with redaction and original SHA-256.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail (600 KB size cap, redaction applied, SHA-256 of the original returned), but leaves opaque what redaction actually removes and what happens when a file exceeds the cap.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the constraints follow.
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 spelled out. For a simple read tool the description is largely adequate, but it omits failure behavior (oversized files, missing files, non-text targets) and does not disambiguate from the many sibling reader tools.
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 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. 'Kodi-relative text file' usefully conveys that the path is relative to the Kodi installation and must point at a text file, but gives no syntax, extension, or error-handling detail.
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 (Read) and resource (Kodi-relative text file) plus notable constraints: 600 KB max, redaction, SHA-256. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from close siblings like kodi_read, kodi_logs, or kodi_browse.
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 guidance at all. With siblings such as kodi_read, kodi_browse, and kodi_logs present, the agent gets no signal about when this file reader is the right choice versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.