Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_text_file

Read a bounded UTF-8 portion of an existing file within configured Owner read roots without modifying it; use only when appropriate because returned text may be sensitive.

Instructions

Use for a bounded UTF-8 read of an existing file within configured Owner read roots. Never modify the file; may return sensitive text, so share only when appropriate.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_text_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the target within the already-configured Owner read/edit roots; path alone grants no access.
`max_bytes`	No	Maximum UTF-8 file bytes, 1 to 65536; default 65536.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply real behavioral facts: it is non-mutating ('never modify'), scoped to owner read roots, and may expose sensitive content. However, it omits the behavior an agent most needs for a 'bounded' read — whether an oversized file truncates, errors, or must be re-read with read_text_page — and says nothing about failure modes for missing or non-UTF-8 files.

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, with the read scope front-loaded and the safety caveat second. The lead-in 'Use for a' is slightly wasteful but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with only two well-documented parameters the definition covers scope, safety, and mutability adequately. The remaining gap is truncation/oversize behavior, which matters given the explicit byte bound and the sibling paging tools.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the 1–65536 range and 65536 default for max_bytes. The description's word 'bounded' only echoes that parameter and adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('bounded UTF-8 read of an existing file') and adds scope ('within configured Owner read roots'). It is clearly a whole-file read rather than a paged/line-range/compare operation, though it never names the closest siblings (read_text_page, read_text_lines, read_text_chunk) that an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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 context is implied by 'existing file within configured Owner read roots' and the sensitivity warning, which tells the agent this is a normal in-scope read. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance despite six sibling read tools, and nothing says what to do when the file exceeds the byte bound.

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