Read a UTF-8 text document from Tealfabric document storage by file path, enabling you to retrieve document contents within Cursor.
Read a UTF-8 text document from Tealfabric documents storage (action=read-text).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Full path to the text file | |
| tenant_id | No | Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation and 'UTF-8 text' scopes what files are eligible, but there is no mention of permissions, size limits, or error behavior on missing files.
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 padding. The trailing '(action=read-text)' is internal API plumbing that adds little for an agent, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say what the returned text looks like (raw string vs structured payload).
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%, including the useful note that tenant_id is ignored in favor of the auth tenant, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about file_path format or path resolution.
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 a UTF-8 text document from Tealfabric documents storage') with a format constraint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from tealfabric_write_document_text by the read verb, but never explicitly names siblings like tealfabric_download_document or tealfabric_get_document_metadata.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer from the name that this is for text content rather than metadata (get_document_metadata) or binary retrieval (download_document); nothing in the description routes it explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.