Retrieve text file contents as numbered lines, optionally from a chosen line and up to a line limit. Use it to inspect file contents within a workspace.
Reads a text file as numbered lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Inside the workspace; relative to it, or absolute. | |
| limit | No | How many lines; 2000 by default. | |
| offset | No | The first line, from 1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that lines come back numbered, but says nothing about truncation when limit is hit, behavior past end-of-file, or non-text/binary handling.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps that a second clause could have cheaply closed.
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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits what happens on truncation or invalid paths, which matters for correct invocation.
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%, so path, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about defaults or interaction between offset and limit, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("Reads a text file") and adds the output shape ("as numbered lines"), which tells an agent what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate from the siblings list/search, though the verb makes the distinction fairly obvious.
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 guidance on when to use this versus search or list, nor any prerequisites such as the file having to exist. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is for fetching known file contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.