mcp-documentation

Read Doc

read_doc

Retrieve specific document chunks by filename, category, subcategory, and chunk numbers to access the exact paginated content you need.

Instructions

Read specific chunks of one document.

Raises: ValueError: Too many chunk_numbers requested, no document matches, or file_name is ambiguous within category/subcategory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	Yes	Document's category
`file_name`	Yes	Document's extension-stripped filename, as returned by list_doc/search_doc
`subcategory`	Yes	Document's subcategory, or null if it has none
`chunk_numbers`	Yes	Which chunk numbers to return - capped at max_chunks_per_read per call (see config.yaml)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chunks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully enumerates ValueError conditions, but it does not mention rate limits, permissions, side effects, or confirmation that reading is non-destructive beyond the verb 'Read.'

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concise error section. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and failure modes. It could be more explicit about the prerequisite of obtaining file_name from list_doc/search_doc, though the schema partially communicates this.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds little beyond the error condition involving chunk_numbers, which is a minor enhancement over the schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Read specific chunks of one document.' It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_doc or list_doc, but the purpose is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces it.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The opening sentence clearly describes when to use the tool: when you need specific chunks of a single document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it without confusion.

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

Deploy Server