Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sangingeum

filekeeper-mcp

by sangingeum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

file_read_many

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads up to 32 text files in a single read-only call, returning independent success or error results per path and optional inclusive line ranges so one missing file does not block the others.

Instructions

Read several text files in one call (at most 32 paths).

    Each entry reports its own path, ok flag, result or error; one missing
    file does not hide the others. Line numbers are 1-based and inclusive and
    apply to every file. The call itself is read-only. More than 32 paths is
    refused with LIMIT_EXCEEDED rather than silently truncated.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes
end_lineNo
start_lineNo
max_bytes_per_fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the partial-failure contract ('one missing file does not hide the others') and the over-limit behavior ('refused with LIMIT_EXCEEDED rather than silently truncated'). That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about max_bytes_per_file truncation behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its hard limit, then failure semantics, then line-number semantics. No filler.

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?

Per-entry result shape is described, which is valuable given there is no output schema, and the limit/error contract is covered. The gap is max_bytes_per_file: its units, truncation/error behavior, and interaction with max_bytes limits are unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does so for paths (hard cap of 32) and start_line/end_line (1-based, inclusive, applied to every file). Only max_bytes_per_file is left without any semantic explanation, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (read) plus resource (several text files) and explicit batching scope ('in one call, at most 32 paths'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the single-file sibling file_read without the agent needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies batch efficiency versus repeated file_read calls, but it never explicitly names file_read or states when to choose one over the other. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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