Read a text file from a Godot project by providing the project path and file path relative to the project root.
Read a text file from a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | File path relative to project root | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. It says the tool reads a text file, but does not mention what happens if the file is binary, whether it returns raw content or metadata, size limits, encoding handling, or error behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but a read tool with no annotations should at least confirm it is non-destructive, which the name and description imply but do not explicitly state.
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?
One sentence, no filler, every word earns its place. It's a model of conciseness for a simple read operation.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fill more gaps. It doesn't state the return format, error behavior, or how paths are resolved (e.g., absolute vs relative). For a simple read tool, close to adequate, but the complete absence of output information and edge-case handling leaves an agent guessing about what to expect.
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 description does not add parameter-level detail. However, schema coverage is 100% with straightforward descriptions 'File path relative to project root' and 'Godot project path', so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'text file' clarifies that filePath should identify a text file, which is a small addition, but not enough to raise the score.
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 concrete action ('Read a text file') and a specific resource ('from a Godot project'), which is clear enough to distinguish from write_file and delete_file. However, it doesn't differentiate from read_scene or read_project_settings, which read different resource types; the description is clear but doesn't explicitly mention 'text' vs other file types beyond the name.
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 guidance is provided about when to use read_file versus alternatives like read_scene or list_project_files. The description simply states the functionality without any context on scope, exclusions, or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.