Skip to main content
Glama
roynertr

COBie MCP

by roynertr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

extract_from_text

Extract text file contents along with word count, line count, and key phrases. Provides structured data for further analysis or validation.

Instructions

Extract content from a text file (.txt).

Args:
    text_path: Path to the text file
    mode: Extraction mode (currently only 'content' supported)

Returns:
    Dictionary with content, word_count, line_count, and key_phrases

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNocontent
text_pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explains the return dictionary but does not mention side effects, file access behavior, or error handling. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden, and it only partially addresses this.

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 concise, well-structured, and contains no unnecessary wording. The Args and Returns sections make the tool's behavior easy to grasp.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple extraction tool. It lacks explicit edge-case or error behavior, but the core usage is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Both parameters are briefly described in the Args section, and the mode parameter is clarified as currently only supporting 'content'. This adds useful meaning beyond the bare schema, though path details such as supported file locations are not specified.

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 extracts content from a .txt file and lists the returned information. It is distinct from sibling extract tools by explicitly targeting text files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the .txt file scope, but the description does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools like extract_from_submittal or extract_from_excel_attachment. No exclusions or alternative guidance is 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