Write text or base64 data to a file on the target IPC and optionally append to it, enabling remote file updates in TwinCAT workflows.
Write a file on the target IPC (text or base64). Control-class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| append | No | ||
| base64_data | No | ||
| confirm_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral: it does not say it overwrites existing content, does not explain the 'Control-class' designation, and does not describe the confirm_token confirmation flow implied by the schema.
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?
Two short fragments that are front-loaded with the core action. However, 'Control-class' occupies space without conveying usable meaning, so the brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive control-class write with 5 undocumented parameters and an unexplained confirm_token, the description leaves major gaps an agent needs before invoking it safely.
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 0% across 5 parameters. The description only touches text vs base64, mapping loosely to two params, and says nothing about append, path semantics, or confirm_token. It does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.
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 and resource (write a file on the target IPC) and notes the text vs base64 modes, which distinguishes it from siblings like ipc_read_file and ipc_delete_file. The trailing 'Control-class' label is unexplained jargon that slightly clouds an otherwise clear purpose.
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 tool versus alternatives such as ads_write, ipc_read_file, or ipc_delete_file. It hints that text or base64 can be supplied but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.