Read an organizational context file by its path to retrieve its content for AI agents, enabling access to specific policies and constraints.
Read one organizational context file by id (its path, as returned by search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | File path, e.g. 'organisation/constraints.md' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the resource type and id provenance (as returned by search), which is useful, but no further behavioral detail is provided.
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 zero waste. It conveys exactly what the tool does without redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description provides the essential id semantics. It does not explicitly state the return content, but that is reasonably implied by 'Read'.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the id as a file path. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the id must come from search, which is beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('one organizational context file'), plus the id is a path from search. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'get_context', so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 tool should be used after search returns a path, but does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like get_context. The usage context is present but not explicit enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.