Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IMALI Commander

IMALI Commander

Official
by IMALI-DEFI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

write_file

Create or replace a UTF-8 file in the workspace by supplying a file path and content, letting AI assistants persist text output of up to 1 MB.

Instructions

Create or replace UTF-8 file in workspace

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical destructive trait ('replace') and the encoding (UTF-8), which is real value, but it omits permissions, whether missing parent directories are created, overwrite confirmation, atomicity, and error behavior 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short phrase that front-loads the most decision-relevant fact, the create-or-replace semantics. It is efficient and free of filler, though the telegraphic fragment style leaves no room for the details the tool actually needs.

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?

For a destructive write tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the definition is too thin. An agent still cannot tell how paths resolve, whether the write is all-or-nothing, or what a failure looks like.

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% across both required parameters. The description never clarifies whether 'file' is an absolute path or workspace-relative, nor whether 'content' is written verbatim, so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('create or replace') and resource ('UTF-8 file in workspace'), which is enough to distinguish it from read_file and list_files. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for the upload or download variants, so differentiation is only partial.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like upload_file and run_workspace_command present, an agent gets no signal about when writing a file directly is preferred over uploading or shelling out, nor any precondition for calling it.

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