Unlimited Agent

Read local file

read_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read any local file accessible to the current Windows user. Choose utf8 for text files or base64 for binary files to retrieve their contents.

Instructions

Read any local file accessible to the current Windows user. Use utf8 for text and base64 for binary files.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`encoding`	No		utf8

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context by restricting access to files available to the current Windows user and by directing base64 for binary files. It does not discuss error cases, but the annotation safety profile lowers that burden.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and every phrase adds useful information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-file tool with no output schema and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the core scope and encoding behavior. It does not mention error handling, missing files, or response format, but for a straightforward local read tool this is not a critical gap.

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?

The schema only provides names and an enum for encoding, while the description enriches the encoding parameter by explaining that utf8 is for text and base64 is for binary. It also clarifies the path parameter as a local file accessible to the current user, though it does not detail path formatting requirements.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Read any local file accessible to the current Windows user,' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this tool from write/edit tools by emphasizing local file reading.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear contextual guidance: it is for local file reading, and it specifies when to use utf8 vs base64 encoding. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the local-file scope and encoding instructions make usage largely unambiguous.

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