Skip to main content
Glama
Attacktive

claude-projects-mcp-server

by Attacktive
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

write_document

Create or replace project documents with local backups, overwrite protection, and teammate conflict detection; refuse writes that exceed project limits.

Instructions

Create a document, or replace one with overwrite=true. The previous content is backed up locally before any replacement. Pass expected_uuid (from read_document) to refuse the write if a teammate has saved since you read it. Refused when the write would grow the project past its search threshold or its maximum, naming the documents most worth compacting and the largest uploaded files, which only the web UI can remove; allow_search_mode=true accepts the threshold, never the maximum. Relay any warning in the result to the user verbatim — it flags a leftover copy or a file name with no extension.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
file_nameYes
overwriteNo
project_idYes
expected_uuidNo
allow_search_modeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_search_mode
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Allow Search Mode",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only destructiveHint:false as annotation, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: pre-replacement local backup (reconciling with destructiveHint=false), refusal behavior when thresholds are exceeded, actionable refusal details, the web-UI-only limitation for removing uploaded files, and the instruction to relay any warning verbatim. No contradiction found between the description's 'replace' semantics and destructiveHint=false because the backup mechanism explicitly mitigates destructiveness.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create a document, or replace one with overwrite=true') and then adding only conditional and edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place — safety backup, concurrency, refusal conditions, UI limitation, and warning relay — with zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a high-complexity tool (6 params, conditional refusal, concurrency guard, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the failure modes and what they contain, the limitation, the exception flag, and the one return-field behavior (warning) the agent must act on.

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 0%, requiring full compensation from the description. It explains the three non-obvious parameters clearly: overwrite (replacement mode), expected_uuid (optimistic-concurrency guard sourced from read_document), and allow_search_mode (threshold-acceptance, never maximum). The remaining parameters (content, file_name, project_id) are self-evident from their names, so their omission is acceptable.

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 opening clause 'Create a document, or replace one with overwrite=true' states a specific verb, resource, and exact mode condition. It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_document, rename_document, delete_document, and push/pull_documents without requiring schema inspection.

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?

The description embeds clear conditional usage: overwrite=true for replacement, expected_uuid from read_document for concurrency safety, and allow_search_mode for the threshold-only exception. It references the read-then-write workflow via read_document. It stops short of explicit 'don't use when' statements or alternative routing, which keeps it at a 4.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools