Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_read_media_source_file

Read a file from a MODX media source by path, with optional source ID or name, to retrieve its contents for inspection or processing.

Instructions

Read a file inside a media source.

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": "modx_read_media_source_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether the read is text or binary, encoding, file-size limits, or what is returned. Only the weak implication of 'Read' (non-mutating) is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the definition is too thin for the operation. An agent cannot tell how to address the media source, what the response contains, or how errors/binary content are handled.

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% and the description mentions no parameters. It never explains that the media source is selected by id or name while path identifies the file, nor the relationship among the three parameters – a critical ambiguity for a required path plus two alternative identifiers.

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 and resource ('Read a file inside a media source') that an agent can distinguish from siblings such as modx_read_component_file and modx_list_media_source_files. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or clarify what makes this a 'media source' file versus other file reads.

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 instead of the many adjacent file tools (modx_list_media_source_files, modx_create_media_file, modx_update_media_file, modx_read_component_file), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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