Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket File Write

bucket_file_write

Write or replace one TEXT file in a bucket (HTML/CSS/JS/JSON/SVG/Markdown/etc.). For a Wbuilder bucket, first read AGENTS.md and its contract, edit data/, leave _config/ read-only, and pass expected_bucket_revision_id from bucket_get when practical. JavaScript is supported and published as-is. Binary assets and whole local folders use the CLI or REST direct-upload API. The response's bucket carries dashboard_url (and public_url when published); show that link to the user instead of the raw bucket id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional note recorded on the created file revision.
pathYesBucket-relative path, for example index.html or assets/styles.css.
contentYesUTF-8 text file content (HTML/CSS/JS/JSON/SVG/Markdown/etc.). JavaScript is supported; published sites serve it as-is. Binary assets (images, fonts, PDFs) go through the CLI 'revdoku p <dir>' or the REST direct-upload API (direct to storage), not here.
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
content_typeNoMIME type such as text/html, text/css, text/plain, or application/json.
revision_commentNoOptional comment recorded with the file revision or path operation.
expected_bucket_revision_idNoOptional optimistic-concurrency token from bucket.current_bucket_revision_id. A stale value returns BUCKET_REVISION_CONFLICT without saving.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYes
skippedYes
writtenYes
guidanceNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide little behavioral info beyond non-read-only/non-idempotent hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool writes or replaces content, that JavaScript is published as-is, and that the response bucket carries dashboard_url/public_url with guidance to show the link. This is helpful, though it omits details about revision creation, permissions, or conflict behavior beyond what the schema mentions.

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 four sentences with no waste: purpose, bucket-contract guidance, binary/local-folder exclusion, and response-link instruction. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 and the presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides the remaining needed context: what payloads apply, what to do for Wbuilder buckets, where binary assets belong, and how to present results to the user. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to explain each parameter. It adds value by connecting expected_bucket_revision_id to bucket_get, mentioning the Wbuilder data/_config rule, and pointing to the response links, which complements the schema.

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: write or replace one TEXT file in a bucket, with concrete examples of supported formats. The 'one TEXT file' scope immediately distinguishes it from multi-file and append siblings, and the binary/local-folder exclusion further clarifies its boundaries.

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?

It gives clear context for Wbuilder buckets (read AGENTS.md, respect contract, leave _config read-only) and an explicit when-not: binary assets and whole local folders should use the CLI or REST direct-upload API. It does not explicitly compare against bucket_file_append_text or bucket_file_write_many, though the 'one TEXT file' framing and sibling names largely cover this.

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

All Revdoku 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlaps exist: bucket_file_move and bucket_file_rename both handle same-bucket renames/moves, and bucket_file_reorganize overlaps with copy/move operations. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries aren't always obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows predictable patterns: bucket_<verb> for bucket-level actions, bucket_file_<verb> for file operations, bucket_publication_<verb> for publications, and website_preview_* for previews. Minor deviations like bucket_create_from_template, bucket_set_public_slug, and bucket_update_publication_access deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the server is overweight for its scope. While the platform is feature-rich, many tools are narrowly specialized (e.g., bucket_publication_leads, bucket_lock_visibility_changes) and some are redundant (file_move vs file_rename vs file_reorganize), making the surface larger than necessary for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the full bucket lifecycle and most file operations, but there is no direct file delete tool (only via delete_missing in write_many or cross-bucket move soft-delete) and binary uploads are explicitly delegated to the CLI/REST. These are notable gaps for a complete file management workflow.

Resources