Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Connapse

Connapse

by Destrayon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

append_to_file

Add text to the end of an existing text file and reindex it, keeping the file's ID, path, and date. Use it to log entries or extend notes without rewriting the whole file.

Instructions

Add text to the end of an existing text file (.md, .txt, .log, ...) and reindex it. The text goes on exactly as given, so start it with a newline to put it on a new line. The file keeps its ID, path and added date; appends to one file through this server at once all land.

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": {
      "containerId": "<containerId>",
      "file": "<file>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "append_to_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesDocument ID (UUID) or virtual path of the file, e.g. /log/2026-11-08.md
textYesThe text to add to the end of the file
containerIdYesContainer ID or name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the reindex side effect, that text is inserted verbatim without normalization, that the file's ID/path/added date are preserved, and that concurrent appends to the same file are serialized. It omits failure modes (nonexistent file, unsupported type) and any note on the cost of reindexing.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and each sentence contributing new information (side effect, formatting rule, identity/concurrency guarantees). The clause 'appends to one file through this server at once all land' is awkwardly phrased and slightly harder to parse than the rest.

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 no output schema and only three fully documented parameters, the description supplies the behavioral context an agent needs: verbatim insertion, reindexing, identity preservation, and append serialization. Error behavior for a missing or unsupported file is the main remaining gap for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that 'text' is written exactly as given and by instructing callers to include a leading newline to place content on its own line. It adds no further meaning for containerId or the ID-versus-path dual form of 'file', which the schema already covers.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add text to the end of an existing text file') and even enumerates applicable extensions (.md, .txt, .log), so an agent can immediately tell this mutates an existing file rather than creating or deleting one. It stops short of naming a sibling such as upload_file as the alternative for new files, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for appending to an existing file, and callers should prefix the text with a newline. There is no explicit when-to-use versus upload_file, and no guidance on what happens when the target file is missing or is not a supported text format.

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