Skip to main content
Glama
wonderwhy-er

Claude Desktop Commander MCP

by wonderwhy-er
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

read_multiple_files

Read-only

Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously.

Instructions

                    Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously.
                    
                    Each file's content is returned with its path as a reference.
                    Handles text files normally and renders images as viewable content.
                    Recognized image types: PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP.
                    
                    Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation.
                    Only works within allowed directories.
                    
                    Absolute paths are the most reliable because they do not depend on the current working directory. Paths are automatically normalized regardless of slash direction. Relative paths depend on the current working directory, and tilde paths (~/...) may not resolve in every context. Absolute paths are generally the most reliable.
                    This command can be referenced as "DC: ..." or "use Desktop Commander to ..." in your instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: partial failure tolerance ('Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation'), image rendering as viewable content with supported types, and directory sandboxing. These go beyond what the annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and return behavior are front-loaded well, but the path discussion repeats itself ('Absolute paths are the most reliable because...' and later 'Absolute paths are generally the most reliable'), and the closing 'DC:' reference line is meta rather than tool-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (each file's content paired with its path) and image rendering, plus failure and directory constraints. It is nearly complete for a read tool, missing only guidance on choosing it over single-file reads.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does add real path semantics: automatic normalization regardless of slash direction, tilde caveats, and the reliability argument for absolute paths. It stops short of clarifying array behavior such as ordering, duplicates, or per-path failure reporting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously'), and the multi-file scope naturally contrasts with the single-file sibling read_file. It is clear, but it never names read_file as the alternative for single-file reads, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives real constraints ('Only works within allowed directories') and path guidance, but never states when to choose this over read_file or other siblings. Usage is implied by the scope rather than laid out as a selection rule.

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