Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ryns-code-mcp

ryns-code-mcp

by rayenking
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Read File

read_file

Read a UTF-8 file on a Linux machine, optionally limited to a start and end line range, to inspect specific text sections.

Instructions

Read a UTF-8 file with optional line range.

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
pathYes
end_lineNo
start_lineNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only UTF-8 files are supported and that line ranges are optional, but it says nothing about missing files, binary/non-UTF-8 errors, permissions, file size limits, or what the return value looks like.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important semantics unstated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple three-parameter file-reading tool, the description is too sparse given 0% schema description coverage and no output schema. An agent cannot confidently infer line-range semantics, error behavior, or path constraints from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions an 'optional line range,' which vaguely maps to start_line and end_line, but it does not clarify whether line numbers are inclusive, 1-based, how ordering works, or what the path parameter requires.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a UTF-8 file with optional line range.' This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like write_file and edit_file, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from search_files or grep.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_files, grep, or get_file_info. The usage is implied by the name, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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