Skip to main content
Glama

read_app_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one file out of an app as text. Use it for a file read_app marked content_omitted answer budget, or to fetch a single file without the rest of the app. Answers at most 256 KB of text. A file that is not text, and a text file over that size, are refused rather than truncated. Reads the newest version unless you name one, which is the same version read_app lists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe path inside the app, as it appears in read_app's files, for example index.html.
app_idYesThe app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_.
numberNoThe version number to read from. Defaults to the newest version.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds material operational constraints: the 256 KB text answer limit, refusal of non-text or oversized files rather than truncation, and the default-to-newest-version behavior tied to read_app's version listing.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, use cases, limits, refusal behavior, and versioning without padding. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple single-file read operation with read-only annotations, the description covers when to use it, input semantics, output size limits, failure behavior, and versioning. No output schema exists, but 'as text' and the explicit size cap are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that the version number corresponds to the same version list read_app exposes and that the newest version is used by default, reinforcing the relationship between versions and the file path.

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 a specific verb and resource: reading one file from an app as text. It also differentiates itself from read_app by noting it fetches a single file without the rest of the app, making its scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly gives two triggering conditions: use it when read_app marks a file as content_omitted/answer budget, or when only one file is needed. It indirectly identifies read_app as the alternative for whole-app reads, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.