Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
litewrite-mcp-server

litewrite-mcp-server

by KevinKwank
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Write Local Working Copy File

litewrite_local_write
DestructiveIdempotent

Write or overwrite a file in a project's local mirror without network calls. Changes stay local until you push them to the server.

Instructions

Write or overwrite a file in the local mirror of a project (no network call).

Changes are NOT uploaded to Litewrite until you run litewrite_push.

Args:

  • projectId (string, required): The project id.

  • filePath (string, required): Relative path in the local copy.

  • content (string, required): The full text content to write.

Text files edited/created here will be uploaded by litewrite_push.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "litewrite_local_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe full new content
filePathYesRelative path in the local copy
projectIdYesThe Litewrite project id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state overwrite risk. It adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the write is local-only with no network call, and it is deferred until litewrite_push. It does not clarify whether a nonexistent path or missing directories are created.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the no-network qualifier, then a well-formatted Args block. Mild redundancy: the deferred-upload point is made twice ("Changes are NOT uploaded... until litewrite_push" and "will be uploaded by litewrite_push"), and the Args repeat schema descriptions.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-param mutation with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the local-staging/push workflow. Edge cases such as path creation or failure modes on unwritable paths are unaddressed but minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented. The description's Args block largely restates the schema; the only added nuance is "the full text content to write," implying replacement rather than append. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write or overwrite a file") and scopes it precisely to "the local mirror of a project (no network call)". This distinguishes it cleanly from remote-write siblings like litewrite_write_file and litewrite_upload_file without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear workflow context: changes are NOT uploaded until litewrite_push runs, which tells the agent this is a staging step rather than a publish step. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool to use for remote writes, so the local-vs-remote routing is implied rather than stated.

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