Plot & Kin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

source_read

Read-only

Retrieve preserved document text or original page/crop images with coordinate metadata to inspect evidence for property-history research; performs no model processing.

Instructions

Read preserved source text or an original page/crop image with coordinate metadata. Performs no model processing.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "sourceId": "<sourceId>",
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "source_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`crop`	No
`page`	Yes
`sourceId`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no model processing occurs and that output includes coordinate metadata, which is useful context beyond annotations, but omits return format, pagination, or size limits for images/crops.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without bloating.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter read tool with a nested crop object at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should clarify parameter roles, coordinate system, and output shape to be actionable without schema inspection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 4 parameters (one nested object with 4 sub-fields). The description mentions 'coordinate metadata' and 'crop' only obliquely but does not explain projectId, sourceId, page, or the crop x/y/width/height semantics, leaving a significant gap that the description should fill.

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 (Read) and resource (preserved source text or original page/crop image) with coordinate metadata, distinguishing it from processing siblings via 'Performs no model processing'. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for processed/sampled output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to guidance, no alternatives named. The phrase 'Performs no model processing' implies a distinction from pages_process/page_process but does not tell the agent when to prefer source_read over those tools.

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