Read a cited PDF page by page or from a sentence ID to verify quotes and locate passages.
Read a source page by page (or from a sentence id), e.g. the abstract, or around a search hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| page | No | Page to read (1-based). Default: page 1. | |
| from_sentence | No | Or read sequentially from this sentence id. | |
| max_sentences | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the paginated/sentence-based reading mode, but does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, describe permissions or rate limits, explain the return format, or mention error behavior for a page/sentence that doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core purpose and reading modes are stated immediately, and the examples earn their place by clarifying intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the definition leaves key and max_sentences unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool without inferring the missing parameter meanings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%. The description references the page and from_sentence modes, which loosely maps to the page and from_sentence parameters. It adds no semantics for the key parameter or max_sentences, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented half of the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (a source), and describes the reading modes (page by page or from a sentence id). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch_sources or find_evidence, so sibling routing is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The examples ('the abstract, or around a search hit') imply common use cases, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as fetch_sources or find_evidence, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.