Skip to main content
Glama
AndersHsueh

AX Local Operations MCP Server

by AndersHsueh

file_operation

Destructive

Perform local file operations including reading, writing, listing directories, creating directories, and deleting files or directories with support for working directory resolution and relative paths.

Instructions

文件操作:读取、写入、列出目录、创建目录、删除文件或目录。支持工作目录解析和相对路径。

示例:读取文件 { "operation": "read", "path": "src/index.js", "output_format": "json" } 示例:写入文件 { "operation": "write", "path": "test.txt", "content": "Hello", "output_format": "text" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operationYes要执行的操作类型
pathNo文件或目录的绝对路径,或相对于 working_directory 的相对路径
working_directoryNo工作目录路径,所有相对路径以此为基础解析
contentNo要写入或追加的文件内容
max_sizeNo最大文件大小限制(字节),默认 10485760 (10MB)
output_formatNo输出格式:text(纯文本)、json(结构化JSON)、both(两者兼有)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo文件/目录绝对路径
sizeNo文件大小(字节)
actionNo执行的操类型
contentNo读取的文件内容
createdNo是否创建成功
deletedNo是否删除成功
entriesNo目录列表
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc., covering safety aspects. The description adds useful context about working directory resolution and relative paths, which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits like error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement followed by concise examples. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines operations and features, and the examples illustrate usage. It's appropriately sized for a multi-operation tool, though slightly verbose in Chinese.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple operations) and rich annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and includes examples. However, it lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings, which is a gap given the many file-related alternatives on the server.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond examples showing operation and path usage, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs file operations (read, write, list directory, create directory, delete) with support for working directory resolution and relative paths. It's specific about the operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like file_edit, file_archive, or file_permissions, which likely handle overlapping file system functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_edit, file_archive, or file_search. It includes usage examples but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria among the many file-related sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AndersHsueh/Ax-LocalTools-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server