Skip to main content
Glama
Heretek-RE

re-report-write

by Heretek-RE

write_table

Create a file with a GitHub-Flavored Markdown table from given headers and row data. Returns file path, size, SHA-256, and row/column counts.

Instructions

Render a Markdown table from headers + rows and write it to path.

The table is rendered in GitHub-Flavored Markdown (GFM) style: a header row, a separator row, then one row per record. Column widths are computed from the longest value in each column.

Args: path: file to write headers: column headers (one entry per column) rows: row data (one list per row) overwrite: if True, overwrite an existing file

Returns::

{
  "path": "...",
  "size": N,
  "sha256": "<64 hex chars>",
  "row_count": M,
  "column_count": K,
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
headersYes
rowsYes
overwriteNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: table rendering style (GFM), column width algorithm, overwrite flag, and return object including path, size, sha256, row_count, column_count.

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?

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading purpose. Every sentence adds value, but slightly verbose with full return schema in description.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes a return object specification. Covers rendering details, overwrite behavior, and parameter explanations, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but description compensates with an Args section explaining each parameter's role. Adds meaning beyond schema (e.g., column widths, GFM style), though could be more detailed on constraints like file format.

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 description clearly states it renders a Markdown table from headers and rows and writes to a path, specifying GFM style and column width computation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_report_write and write_report.

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?

Implied usage: when you need to write a Markdown table. No explicit when-not or alternatives to sibling tools, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Heretek-RE/re-report-write'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server