Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

File Write

file_write

Writes text to a local file — create, overwrite, or append. For .txt/.md/.csv/.json/.log and any plain-text or code file. (For Word use word_create, Excel excel_create, PowerPoint ppt_create.) The path must be inside an allowed folder — the same allowlist as file_read (home directory by default; extend via Advanced Settings → Allowed folders). Overwriting an existing file requires confirm=true (the first call returns a preview instead); append=true adds to the end and never needs confirm. Missing parent folders are created.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the file to write
appendNoAppend to the end instead of overwriting (default false)
confirmNoRequired (true) to OVERWRITE an existing file. Not needed to create a new file or to append.
contentYesText content to write

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing critical behaviors: overwrite requires confirm=true with a preview-first flow, append never requires confirm, missing parent folders are auto-created, and the path must be in an allowed folder. These are essential safety and execution details that the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core function and then systematically covering file types, alternatives, path restrictions, overwrite/append behavior, and folder creation. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the parenthetical for alternatives is efficient. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no enums, output schema present), the description covers all essential context: file types, alternatives, safety confirm flow, append semantics, path allowlist, and auto-creation of parent folders. The existence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed. This is a complete, self-contained description.

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 already covers all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter interplay: confirm is only needed for overwrite, append bypasses confirm, and content is treated as plain text. This enriches the schema descriptions, though not exhaustively (e.g., no examples of path format), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Writes text to a local file — create, overwrite, or append.' It identifies the resource (local file), the specific verb (write), and scope (create/overwrite/append). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint by explicitly naming alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable. The description gives the when: for plain-text or code files, and the when-not: for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, with specific alternative tool names. It also specifies path restrictions (same allowlist as file_read) and how to extend them, leaving no doubt about when this tool is appropriate.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources