read_multiple_filesRead several whole files at once from your everkeep folder, returned as numbered lines. Skips the trash; use read_text_file instead for a line range or revision.
Read several whole files at once (documents as numbered lines, as read_text_file; the trash is skipped). For a line range or rev use read_text_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: output is rendered as numbered lines matching read_text_file, only whole files are read, ranges are unsupported, and trashed items are excluded.
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?
Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the capability and immediately following with the routing rule; the parentheticals carry distinct constraints without filler.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return rendering (numbered lines) plus the trash exclusion, so the main unknowns are filled. It omits failure/ordering behavior for partial matches, a minor remaining gap for a read-only batch tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the sole required 'paths' array: ordering of results, whether directories or globs are accepted, or what happens when a path is missing. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read several whole files at once') and constrains scope ('whole files', output as numbered lines, trash skipped), which cleanly separates it from the single-file and range-based siblings.
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?
Explicitly routes to read_text_file for line ranges or rev, and notes the trash is skipped. It does not address the singular read_file sibling, but the when-to-use condition for the range case is stated outright.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.