aspa-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ler documento

aspa_read_knowledge

Read-only

Reads one company knowledge document by relative path from aspa_get_guidelines, supporting Markdown, text, CSV, JSON, YAML, and PDF files.

Instructions

Read one company knowledge document by its relative path from aspa_get_guidelines (Markdown, text, CSV, JSON, YAML or PDF).

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_read_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes	Relative path, e.g. produtos/planos.md

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the set of readable formats (Markdown, text, CSV, JSON, YAML, PDF), but says nothing about how PDFs are handled, size limits, or what happens when the path does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the operation, the unit of scope, the keying parameter, and the format list, with zero redundant wording. Everything an agent needs is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is read, how it is addressed, and which file types are supported. Only the shape of the returned content (raw text vs parsed structure per format) is left to inference.

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% and the single `file` parameter already carries a format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the meaningful origin of the value (aspa_get_guidelines output), which goes slightly beyond the schema, but does not clarify relative-to-what root or accepted path syntax.

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 one company knowledge document") plus the addressing scheme ("by its relative path from aspa_get_guidelines"). That path-source detail implicitly separates it from aspa_search_knowledge and aspa_save_knowledge, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite: the path must come from aspa_get_guidelines, which tells the agent to call that tool first rather than guessing a filename. It stops short of stating exclusions or telling the agent to use aspa_search_knowledge when it does not already have a path.

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