EXZA Remote

Write authorized file

exza_write_authorized_file

Destructive

Create or replace a file in the account-bound, owner-approved device scope. Replacing an existing file permanently discards its previous contents. Confirm the exact path and payload first. Use exza_edit_home_text for a checksum-guarded, single-span edit in a managed-home text file; this tool does not require the original checksum. Requires account-bound computer:write OAuth and any prompted local owner approval.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "exza_write_authorized_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Explicit path inside the scope for this tool; no symlink traversal where prohibited.
`content`	Yes	Exact file contents to create or replace in the allowed scope.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: destructiveHint=true is given concrete meaning ('permanently discards its previous contents'), and the description discloses the auth model (account-bound computer:write OAuth) plus prompted local owner approval, which annotations cannot express. It also clarifies that unlike the edit sibling, no original checksum is required.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the irreversibility warning before the mandatory confirmation step, then routing, then auth. No restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With only two required parameters and annotations that already declare destructive/readOnly/openWorld, the definition covers nearly everything an agent needs to call it safely. The one gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no statement of what is returned (e.g., resulting path, size, or checksum), which matters for chained verification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with path-scope and exactness constraints. The description reinforces caution ('confirm the exact path and payload first') but adds no format, encoding, or size-limit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb pair ('create or replace') and resource ('file') together with the precise scope ('account-bound, owner-approved device scope'), which is what separates it from the home-scope write/edit siblings. An agent can identify what this tool does and roughly where it operates without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names a sibling alternative (exza_edit_home_text) and the decision rule that selects it: checksum-guarded single-span edit in a managed-home text file. It also adds a pre-call prerequisite ('Confirm the exact path and payload first'). It stops short of addressing other near neighbours like exza_write_home_text or exza_append_commander_file, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All EXZA Remote tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?