View image files directly from a research folder, including figures and rendered PDF pages, so you can see the content instead of just a file path.
Read an image file (a figure, or a rendered PDF page) so the calling client can actually see it, not just receive a path string.
Only for genuine image files -- for a PDF page, call render_pdf_pages
first to get PNG paths, then read those here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is actual image data (not a path string), and it clarifies the tool does not handle PDFs directly. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Read' and the context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides critical usage boundaries. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides all necessary context for an agent to choose and invoke this tool correctly: what it does, what input it expects, and the required workflow when dealing with PDF pages. It also distinguishes it from related tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the parameter refers to an image file, including figures or rendered PDF pages, and specifically mentions PNG paths from render_pdf_pages. This gives sufficient context for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads an image file so the client can actually see it, not just receive a path string. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from render_pdf_pages, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('only for genuine image files') and when to use an alternative (call render_pdf_pages first, then read the PNG paths). This is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.