Write or overwrite a text file in a site's container.
Creates parent directories if they don't exist.
Requires: API key with write scope.
Args: slug: Site identifier path: Relative path to the file content: File content as a UTF-8 string
Returns: {"success": true, "path": "...", "size": 1234}
Errors: NOT_FOUND: Unknown slug FORBIDDEN: Protected system path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses overwrite semantics, automatic parent directory creation, auth requirements, return shape, and possible errors (NOT_FOUND, FORBIDDEN). This is rich behavioral context beyond what structured data provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (main action, side effects, requirements, args, returns, errors). It is appropriately sized, with no redundant or filler content; every line adds useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description fully covers usage: purpose, side effects, auth, parameters, return format, and error cases. It leaves no significant gap for an agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args block that explains each parameter (slug, path, content) with meaningful descriptions. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Write or overwrite a text file in a site's container,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file, delete_file, and upload_file by specifying text file handling and overwrite behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use this tool (to write or overwrite a text file) and includes a prerequisite (API key with write scope). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.
144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.
