Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-sudo-mcp

agent-sudo-mcp

by Kisyntra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_file

Write UTF-8 text content to a file within a secured workspace, with permission enforcement from agent-sudo-mcp.

Instructions

DEMO/REFERENCE executor: classifies and gates the write through agent-sudo, then writes inside the configured workspace (defaults to /tmp/agent-sudo-demo if no workspace is configured). It does not write to arbitrary paths outside the 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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesUTF-8 text content.
pathYesFile path to write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the workspace constraint and security gating, though the 'classifies and gates' mechanism is vague. It does not cover error handling or failure modes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences succinctly convey purpose, mechanism, and constraint, with no redundant information and key points front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers core behavior, it lacks details on error handling, gating outcomes, and content validation. Given the simplicity and no output schema, moderate completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial context that the path must be within the configured workspace, resolving ambiguity in the schema's 'File path to write'.

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?

The description clearly states it writes files inside a configured workspace with security gating, distinguishing it from siblings (read_file, run_shell_command, get_runtime_context) by specifying the action and constraints.

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?

The description implies use for writing files within the workspace and not for arbitrary paths, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings beyond the workspace restriction.

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