Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-project-helper

mcp-project-helper

by pw5rhn4tnn-dotcom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_project_file

Read a text file within the allowed project root to provide AI assistants with secure access to file contents for analysis.

Instructions

Read one text file inside the allowed project root.

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_project_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: only 'text' files are handled and paths are confined to the 'allowed project root', implying rejection of out-of-root or binary inputs. It omits error behavior, encoding, and size limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One efficient sentence with the resource and the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified for a tool with no annotations, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, output schema present so return values need not be explained), and the description covers the basic contract. However, with no annotations it leaves error handling, path resolution rules, and file-type restrictions implicit — the minimum viable level.

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 single 'path' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies the path is relative to the allowed project root and must point to a text file, but adds no syntax, format, or relative-vs-absolute guidance.

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 (Read) and resource (one text file) plus a scoping constraint (inside the allowed project root), so the agent knows it is a single-file read rather than a search. It does not name the sibling search_project_files or get_docs, so differentiation is implied by 'one text file' rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (search_project_files, get_docs). The 'allowed project root' phrasing hints at a boundary, but the agent must infer when this tool is preferable to its 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