Adds a line of text to the end of a file, creating the file if it does not exist. Use it to log notes or extend text files on a macOS laptop.
Add a line to the end of a text file, creating the file if needed.
Args:
path: Full path to the file.
text: The line to append.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the file is created if missing, but omits encoding, newline handling, and permission/error behavior for a mutating tool.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, and the Args block is terse with no wasted words. The docstring-style Args formatting is functional though slightly redundant with the schema.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both arguments, and the file-creation behavior. Only minor gaps remain around encoding, newline handling, and success/failure reporting.
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%, so the description carries the burden and does document both params: path as a full file path and text as the line to append. It does not clarify newline or encoding expectations for text, so it falls short of fully compensating.
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 (add/append) and resource (a line to the end of a text file), plus the file-creation side effect. An agent can distinguish it immediately from file-reading siblings like read_file and open_file.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to read_file with no explicit routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.