Retrieve file contents from a remote server over SFTP by specifying the configured host and absolute path, with an optional byte limit to control the amount returned.
Read a remote file over SFTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Configured host name | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path of the file to read | |
| max_bytes | No | Maximum number of bytes to return |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning limits like max_bytes, return format, error behavior, or whether it reads the entire file. The description does not contradict any annotations since none exist.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices behavioral details for brevity.
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 read operation, the description conveys the core action, but it lacks context for choosing this tool over tail_log and does not mention the max_bytes truncation behavior. However, the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter schema reduces the need for further elaboration. Overall, it is minimally complete for a straightforward tool.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (host, path, max_bytes). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, so the schema itself bears the responsibility. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'read' and a resource 'remote file' over SFTP, clearly indicating the operation. It differentiates from write_file and list_directory, though it is less explicit about the difference from tail_log. Overall, the purpose is clear and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tail_log or list_directory. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or cross-references to sibling tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.