Read a file from local or remote P2P-streamed Hyperdrive by virtual path; optionally pass the hex drive key to access remote drives.
Liest eine Datei aus dem lokalen oder remote über P2P gestreamten Hyperdrive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Der Hex-Key des Drives. | |
| filePath | Yes | Virtueller Pfad im Drive (z. B. "/state.json"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the file may come from a remote peer stream, but does not disclose permission/auth needs, prerequisite connection state, behavior on missing files or unreachable peers, or whether the operation is side-effect free. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the tool's prerequisites and remote-streaming behavior warrant one more clause.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on the drive-connection prerequisite or remote-fetch failure modes, the description leaves an agent without enough information to invoke this correctly in the P2P workflow.
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 100% and both parameters (key, filePath) are documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Liest/reads) and resource (Datei/file) and adds scope: local or P2P-streamed remote Hyperdrive. This distinguishes it from the write sibling p2p_file_write, though it doesn't explicitly name it.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that a drive must first be created/connected (p2p_drive_create / p2p_drive_connect) before reading, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.