Read UTF-8 text files within an allowed root. Secret-like files are blocked by default to prevent exposing credentials.
Read a UTF-8 text file inside an allowed root. Secret-like files are blocked by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. | |
| endLine | No | ||
| startLine | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: UTF-8-only encoding, confinement to an allowed root, and default blocking of secret-like files. It stops short of noting error/return behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and the key guardrail front-loaded. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
For a read tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema, the safety side is covered, but the low parameter coverage leaves line-range semantics and path format unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given four parameters and nested agent binding.
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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries the burden for startLine, endLine and the path format, yet it says nothing about them. The line-range parameters and whether path is relative/absolute are left entirely to the bare schema types.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a UTF-8 text file') with the scoping constraint (inside an allowed root) and a blocking rule for secret-like files. This clearly distinguishes it from fs_write/fs_replace/fs_list, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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?
It implies the usage context by describing the allowed-root scoping and blocked secret files, but never says when to choose this over fs_search or fs_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.