EXZA Remote

Write home text

exza_write_home_text

Destructive

Create or replace one managed-home text file up to 48 KB; replacement requires matching expectedSha256. For a narrow change use exza_edit_home_text. 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": {
      "area": "<area>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "exza_write_home_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	Yes	Managed home area, one of the allowed values; no arbitrary filesystem roots.
`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.
`expectedSha256`	No	Lowercase SHA-256 from the prior read; prevents overwriting changed content.

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?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the 48 KB size cap, the optimistic-concurrency requirement that replacement must match expectedSha256, the account-bound computer:write OAuth scope, and the fact that local owner approval may be prompted. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before attempting a destructive write.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the create-or-replace action and its size limit, then the sibling routing, then the auth requirement. No sentence is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a destructive 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers action, limits, concurrency safety, auth scope, and the alternative tool. It stops short of describing failure behavior (sha mismatch, oversized payload) or whether parent directories are created, which would round it out.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains area scoping, path restrictions, content, and expectedSha256 ('from the prior read; prevents overwriting changed content'). The description restates the expectedSha256 precondition and the size bound but adds no format, hashing, or path-syntax detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Create or replace'), the exact resource ('one managed-home text file'), and the scope constraint (48 KB, managed-home). It also names the sibling it is not — exza_edit_home_text — so an agent can distinguish create-or-replace from incremental edit without opening either 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 routes narrow changes to exza_edit_home_text, and the expectedSha256 precondition plus the 48 KB ceiling implicitly define the boundaries of safe use. No explicit statement of when the tool must not be used (e.g., binary content, paths outside the five listed areas), which keeps it from a 5.

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?