Retrieve file content from Jottacloud as UTF-8 text or base64 binary. Control output size using head, tail, or max_bytes parameters for efficient reads.
Read a file from Jottacloud. Text is returned as UTF-8 (capped); binary as base64. Use head/tail/max_bytes to stay small.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| tail | No | ||
| max_bytes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: text is returned as UTF-8 and capped, binary is returned as base64, and size-limiting parameters are encouraged. This informs the agent about output encoding and safety around large files. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, and the openWorldHint is not contradicted either.
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?
The description is three short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, return format is explained, and a practical usage tip follows. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a read operation with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool does, how text vs binary is returned, and how to limit size. It lacks some specifics such as the exact cap threshold or error behavior, so it is not perfect, but it is reasonably complete for this tool.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It adds useful context by linking head, tail, and max_bytes to keeping reads small, but it does not explain each parameter's exact semantics, units, or interaction. This is better than the schema alone but still leaves some parameter behavior to inference.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Read a file from Jottacloud', making it clear that this tool returns file contents. It is distinct from siblings like list_directory, search_files, and get_file_info in that it focuses on reading content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_file_info, so it does not fully earn the top score.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need a file's content rather than metadata or listing information. It also gives practical guidance to use head/tail/max_bytes to keep reads small. But it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternative tools, leaving the selection context mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.