Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-blanko

mcp-blanko

by KI4JLU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

manage_file

Read or write local files within a configurable base directory. Specify the file path and action to perform.

Instructions

Demonstrates reading and writing local files. Operates within a configurable base directory.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "manage_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesWhether to read or write
contentNoContent to write (required for write action)
filePathYesRelative file path within the working directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions a configurable base directory but does not disclose safety aspects (e.g., read/write permissions, potential for overwriting files) or side effects beyond the basic operations.

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 short (18 words) but includes a filler word ('demonstrates'). It is concise, though not optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (read/write, file path, content), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on error handling, file existence behavior, and output, which a tool of this type would benefit from.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage; all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context about the base directory, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema definitions.

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 explicitly states it performs reading and writing of local files, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, the word 'demonstrates' gives a demo connotation rather than a production tool, slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Siblings include diverse tools like fetch_data and long_running_task, but no context is provided for when manage_file is appropriate.

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