Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_text_page

Reads paginated UTF-8 file segments from owner-configured read roots using byte offsets, returning a cursor to continue large files without modifying them.

Instructions

Read a UTF-8 page within existing Owner-configured read roots.

Use for large UTF-8 files needing byte-offset pagination within approved read roots. Reuse the returned byte cursor rather than guessing; no file modifications.

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_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Path to the target within the already-configured Owner read/edit roots; path alone grants no access.
`offset`	No	Byte offset in UTF-8 file, 0 to 4194304; default 0. Use continuation offset.
`max_bytes`	No	Maximum UTF-8 bytes per page, 1 to 65536; default 16384.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety burden itself and does so: 'no file modifications' declares read-only behavior and the read-root constraint clarifies that the path parameter grants no access on its own. It leaves gaps around end-of-file behavior, out-of-range offsets, and decode failures, which matter for a paginated reader.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. There is minor redundancy between 'existing Owner-configured read roots' and 'within approved read roots,' which restates the same access constraint.

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 the returned cursor need not be explained, and the description covers the essentials: encoding, pagination model, access scope, and read-only nature. It could say more about page boundaries and terminal conditions, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so path, offset, and max_bytes are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds only the cursor-reuse hint for offset, which is useful but marginal against a schema that already says 'Use continuation offset.'

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 and resource ('Read a UTF-8 page') plus the scoping constraint of Owner-configured read roots. The phrase 'byte-offset pagination' implicitly separates it from line-based siblings like read_text_lines and read_text_chunk, but those siblings are never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Use for large UTF-8 files needing byte-offset pagination' gives a clear selection condition, and 'Reuse the returned byte cursor rather than guessing' tells the agent how to proceed across calls. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. pointing to read_text_file for small files or read_text_lines for line-oriented reads.

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