ShareWatch

Read File

read_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the text content of a Google Doc, Sheet, or Slides presentation. Docs export as plain text, Sheets as CSV, Slides as plain text. For large files, returns a size warning instead of content — use max_chars and offset to read in chunks.

file_id also accepts a ShareWatch handoff code of the form SW-XXXXXXXX. The user gets one by opening a file from Google Drive with ShareWatch, and it stands for that file until it goes unused for 30 days. The result always reports the real file_id, so use that value for any follow-up call rather than the code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offset`	No	Character offset to start reading from. Use with max_chars to paginate through large files.
`file_id`	Yes	The Google Drive file ID, or a ShareWatch handoff code like SW-7K2MPQ4B that the user was given when they opened a file from Drive
`max_chars`	No	Maximum characters to return. Use this for large files to avoid consuming too much context. Omit to let the server decide (returns full content for small files or a size warning for large ones).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`links`	No
`offset`	No
`content`	Yes
`file_id`	Yes
`trashed`	No
`version`	No
`file_name`	Yes
`mime_type`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`sheet_tabs`	No
`total_chars`	No
`alternatives`	No
`partial_read`	No	Why the content is less than the whole file, or absent entirely. Empty means a complete read. When set, do NOT paginate with offset unless the text says the rest is reachable that way

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: format conversion rules, the size-warning behavior for large files, chunking support, and the lifetime and substitution semantics of ShareWatch handoff codes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and output formats, then adds the secondary handoff-code detail in a separate paragraph. Every sentence contributes useful operational information with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: supported file types, output formats, large-file handling, pagination, and handoff-code behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke read_file correctly and interpret its results appropriately.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover all three parameters, so the baseline is solid. The description adds value by explaining the large-file warning behavior, how offset/max_chars work together for chunking, and the important instruction to use the returned real file_id rather than the handoff code in follow-up calls.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the text content of a Google Doc, Sheet, or Slides presentation.' It further clarifies output formats per resource type, which makes the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling create/update/list/search tools.

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 gives clear guidance for large files: a size warning is returned unless max_chars and offset are used to chunk reads. It also advises using the real file_id from results for follow-up calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like access_file_by_url, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?