Raccoon MCP

Read multiple files

read_multiple_files

Read-only

Read multiple local files concurrently, including images, and return partial results instead of failing the whole batch.

Instructions

Read multiple local files concurrently, including viewable images, without failing the whole batch.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "read_multiple_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	Yes
`deviceId`	No
`deviceName`	No
`concurrency`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one useful non-annotated trait — 'without failing the whole batch' implies partial-failure tolerance, and it notes image support. But it omits what happens to failed paths, retry behavior, and result shape.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action and carrying two meaningful modifiers (concurrency, batch tolerance). No wasted text, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. Path format, concurrency semantics, device targeting, and per-file failure behavior are all unaddressed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains the paths array format/limits, the concurrency knob (default 32), or what deviceId/deviceName select.

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 clear verb (read) and resource (multiple local files) plus the concurrency trait. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like read_file or fs_read_many, leaving the agent to guess which read tool is appropriate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this batch reader versus read_file or fs_read_many, nor when the concurrency or device parameters matter. The reader must infer selection criteria entirely from the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server