Claude File Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read a file

read_file

Reads a text file, optionally limited to a 1-based line range, and truncates large files to help inspect specific content.

Instructions

Reads a text file. An optional line range can be specified (1-based). Large files are truncated.

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

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	File path
`end_line`	No	Last line (inclusive)
`start_line`	No	First line (1-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 does disclose two useful traits: line ranges are 1-based and large files are truncated. However, it never says what the truncation threshold is, what encoding or error behavior to expect for missing/unreadable paths, or whether output is raw text or numbered lines.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the option, then the caveat. Nothing is padded, though "Large files are truncated" is too vague to fully earn its place without a limit.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered, but the truncation behavior is underspecified and there is no guidance on error cases like nonexistent paths. An agent can call it but may be surprised by silent truncation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, and the description only restates that the range is optional and 1-based. It adds no semantics about how start_line/end_line interact (e.g., end_line without start_line) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

"Reads a text file" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of a line range and truncation narrows the scope further. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as read_image or search_content, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 description implies usage (retrieving file contents, optionally a slice) but never states when to prefer this over siblings like search_content for locating text or file_info for metadata. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.