Mythic MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_file

Read the contents of a file on a remote target server using the ReadFile API, returning the data for analysis during penetration testing.

Instructions

Reads a file using the ReadFile win32 API call. Returns the contents of that file.

Args:
    agent_id: ID of agent to read file from
    file_path: Path to the file to read on the target server

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns file contents but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no padding or redundancy.

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?

For a simple file-read tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameters, and mentions the return value. However, it lacks context on error conditions, file accessibility, or encoding, which an agent might need. It is moderately complete but leaves clear gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies both parameters: 'agent_id: ID of agent to read file from' and 'file_path: Path to the file to read on the target server', adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema field names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Reads a file using the ReadFile win32 API call. Returns the contents of that file.' This specifies a distinct verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like run_shell_command or upload_file.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of parameters ('ID of agent to read file from', 'Path to the file to read on the target server'), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance is minimal but present.

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

Deploy Server