Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qwen MCP Filesystem Server

Qwen MCP Filesystem Server

by Frosty-09
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

qwen_write_file

Write content to a project file, creating directories as needed. Support base64 encoding for binary data.

Instructions

Write content to a file inside a project. Use encoding='base64' for binary data.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "qwen_write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
contentYes
projectYes
encodingNoutf-8
create_dirsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the basic write action and binary encoding hint, but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created despite the create_dirs parameter, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the encoding note is relevant and actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 the description lacks essential behavioral context such as overwrite semantics, project requirements, and directory creation behavior. An agent has to guess about destructive behavior, which is risky for a file-writing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics for encoding ('base64' for binary data), but offers no explanation of path, project, content, or create_dirs beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 states a specific verb ('Write'), resource ('content to a file inside a project'), and scope ('inside a project'). It is clear and somewhat distinguishable from qwen_append_file, though it does not explicitly say whether it overwrites existing files.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like qwen_append_file or qwen_rename_file. The only usage hint is the base64 encoding note, which is about parameter handling, not tool selection.

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