Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Large File MCP Server

Large File MCP Server

by willianpinho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

stream_large_file

Stream a large file in chunks to process it efficiently without loading the entire file into memory.

Instructions

Stream a large file in chunks. Returns multiple chunks for processing very large files efficiently.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "stream_large_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesAbsolute path to the file
chunkSizeNoChunk size in bytes (default: 65536 - 64KB)
startOffsetNoStarting byte offset (default: 0)
maxBytesNoMaximum bytes to stream (optional)
maxChunksNoMaximum number of chunks to return (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns multiple chunks but omits details such as response format, error behavior, or whether it is a read operation. More behavioral context is needed for safe invocation.

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 succinct, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words. The core action and purpose are immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite good conciseness, the description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity. It does not explain how chunks are delivered (e.g., response structure, pagination) or how to process them. The absence of an output schema further burdens the description to provide this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that chunks are returned. No parameter descriptions are enhanced.

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 clearly states the tool streams a large file in chunks for efficient processing. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'read_large_file_chunk', which likely serves a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_large_file_chunk'. The description implies use for large files requiring multiple chunks, but there is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools