Read the full contents of a file by specifying its path relative to the repository root.
Read the full contents of a file.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "read_file"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | File path relative to repo root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like file size limits, encoding, or side effects, but it only states the basic action. However, it is a read operation, so risk is low.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core functionality efficiently.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description minimally covers the purpose but omits details like return format, encoding, or limitations that would help an agent use it correctly.
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 100% and the parameter description 'File path relative to repo root' is adequate. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool reads the full contents of a file, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_files (listing) and search_code (searching), though not explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files or search_code. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.