Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
checkpointer

checkpointer

by IronKommander
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Overwrite a entire file.

write_file
Destructive

Write or overwrite a file with new content; a snapshot is taken to allow safe revert if needed.

Instructions

To completely overwrite a file, after it's snapshot has been taken. (or to create a new file)

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
filepathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the snapshot dependency, which is important behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it is poorly expressed and does not address other aspects like permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the action, but the inclusion of the awkward snapshot clause makes it less clear. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no schema descriptions, and sibling tools that do similar things, the description is severely lacking. It does not cover parameters, usage guidelines, or clarify the snapshot dependency adequately.

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

Parameters1/5

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. It fails to describe either parameter (filepath, content), leaving agents without context for these required inputs.

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 clearly states the tool overwrites a file completely or creates a new one, distinguishing it from partial edits like str_replace. The phrase 'after it's snapshot has been taken' is confusing but does not obscure the main purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like edit_file_lines or str_replace. The precondition about snapshots is mentioned but not elaborated, and no alternatives are listed.

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