Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_file

Read text file contents given a path, with encoding and byte-limit options, to support AI assistants working in Windows developer environments.

Instructions

Read and return the contents of a text file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the file (absolute or relative to cwd).
encodingNoFile encoding. Default: "utf-8".utf-8
max_bytesNoMaximum bytes to read. Larger files are truncated. Default: 1,000,000 (1 MB).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential behaviors such as file-not-found handling, truncation via max_bytes, encoding defaults, or any side effects beyond the basic read operation.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word is necessary.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for selection. However, it omits usage context and behavioral details like truncation, which are only present in the schema, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits a task.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (path, encoding, max_bytes) with clear details, including defaults and truncation behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads and returns the contents of a text file, using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('text file'). It distinguishes from sibling file tools like write_file, delete_file, and list_directory.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without any context for selection among file-related siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools