Skip to main content
Glama
rdwj

MCP Test MCP

by rdwj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Read Resource

read_resource

Read a resource from the connected MCP server using its URI, returning content and metadata.

Instructions

Read a specific resource from the connected MCP server.

Reads a resource by URI and returns its content along with metadata.

Returns: Dictionary with resource content including: - success: True if resource was read successfully - resource: Object with uri, mimeType, and content - metadata: Content size and request timing

Raises: Returns error dict for various failure scenarios: - not_connected: No active connection - resource_not_found: Resource doesn't exist on server - execution_error: Resource read failed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYesURI of the resource to read (e.g., 'config://settings')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (success, resource, metadata) and errata (not_connected, resource_not_found, execution_error), giving the agent a realistic model of behavior. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read tool the returned behavior and error cases are well covered.

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 organized with a short lead sentence, a Returns section, and an error section, making it scannable. There is some redundancy with the presence of an output schema, but the text adds plain-language meaning for the errors and the overall structure earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers input semantics, return structure, and common failure modes, including the requirement of an active connection. It omits list_resources for discovering URIs, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, uri, already has full schema coverage with a type, requirement, and example. The description adds no new semantics beyond restating that the URI identifies the resource, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read a specific resource... by URI') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_resources, which lists resources, and call_tool, which invokes tools. The intent is immediately unambiguous.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as reading a resource from the connected MCP server by URI, so an agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly say 'use list_resources to discover URIs' or explicitly exclude alternatives, so it earns strong clear-context score rather than a full when/whynot/alternatives score.

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