Systems Manager

Sm File Operations

sm_file_operations

Manage files and logs by listing, searching, grepping, reading, creating, updating, or deleting files and tailing system logs for system administration tasks.

Instructions

Operations for file and log management

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>"
    },
    "name": "sm_file_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	Depth for list_files
`lines`	No	Number of lines to tail
`action`	Yes	Action to perform. Must be one of: 'get_system_logs', 'tail_log_file', 'list_files', 'search_files', 'grep_files', 'manage_file'
`confirm`	No	Explicit confirmation for a mutating action. Pass true when the client cannot answer an approval prompt.
`content`	No	Content to create or update the file with
`pattern`	No	Search pattern
`filepath`	No	Path to file
`recursive`	No	Recursive search
`file_action`	No	Action for text editor/manage file	read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.10Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Content to write/append"New value: +"Content to create or update the file with"

changedInput schema / properties / file_action / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "read",
-      "write",
-      "append",
-      "delete",
-      "create"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "read",
+      "create",
+      "update",
+      "delete"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.9Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicit confirmation for a mutating action. Pass true when the client cannot answer an approval prompt.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv2.2.5Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the fact that manage_file with file_action=create/update/delete mutates or destroys files, nor about how the confirm parameter gates approvals. The only hint of mutability lives in the schema, not the description.

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 single phrase is certainly concise and front-loaded, but for a six-action, nine-parameter dispatcher it is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here comes at the cost of any structure that would help route an action.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with destructive file operations, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. Instead it offers one vague phrase and leaves action selection, parameter-to-action mapping, and mutation safety entirely undocumented.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema, including the action enum and the confirm flag. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact across actions (e.g. which params apply to which action), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Operations for file and log management" essentially restates the tool name (sm_file_operations) as a category label rather than naming a specific verb or resource. It never mentions the six actual actions (get_system_logs, tail_log_file, list_files, search_files, grep_files, manage_file), so an agent cannot tell what the tool concretely does or how it differs from siblings like query_system_logs or sm_disk_operations.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as query_system_logs for log retrieval. The agent must infer from the action enum alone which situations this multi-action dispatcher covers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.