Create or update a file in your Odoo.sh source directory with specified content, writing to a path relative to ~/src/user.
Create or update a file with given content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | File content to write | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the file relative to ~/src/user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at upsert behavior via 'create or update' but says nothing about whether existing content is overwritten, whether the parent directory must exist, permission requirements, or encoding. For a write/mutation tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though it is arguably terse to a fault given the mutation semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain overwrite/destructive behavior and path constraints, and the description does not. The only structural support comes from the schema's path description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the path base (~/src/user). The phrase 'with given content' adds nothing beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource combination ('create or update a file') and signals the upsert semantics, which cleanly distinguishes it from the read_file sibling. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_directory or git_add, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.