sota-agw-mcp

Đọc file (.eml/.pdf/.docx/.xlsx…)

file_read

Read-only

Read a file from the working directory to extract text; .eml files return parsed email content plus warnings, while other files return extracted text.

Instructions

Đọc file trong thư mục làm việc. .eml → email đã tách + cảnh báo; file khác → chữ đã trích.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "file_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is free to add the valuable part: .eml files return a parsed email plus warnings, while other files return extracted text. That format-dependent branching and the mention of warnings are genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, marred only by not stating limits, error behavior, or the full format support implied by the title.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope stated first and the per-format return behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope and format-dependent return content, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is path handling and explicit format coverage, which the title hints at but the prose does not confirm.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by anchoring the path to the working directory, which implies relative resolution, but it never clarifies absolute vs. relative paths, extensions, or examples. Adequate hint, not full compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('Đọc file' / read file) and adds scope ('trong thư mục làm việc' / in the working directory), so the agent knows exactly what is being read. It also splits behavior by file type (.eml vs. other formats), which is more than a restatement of the name, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like mail_read or mail_attachment_text that overlap on email content.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the working-directory scoping tells the agent this is for local files, and the .eml branch signals it can handle email files. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternatives that clearly exist for email reading.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server