Skip to main content
Glama
KubaZ2

Agentic Filesystem MCP

by KubaZ2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

edit

Replace exact text in a file to make targeted changes without rewriting entire content.

Instructions

Performs exact string replacement in a file. Useful for making partial changes to an existing file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe path to the file to edit.
new_stringYesThe text to replace it with. This will be inserted exactly as provided.
old_stringYesThe exact text to replace. IMPORTANT: This must match the file contents exactly, including all indentation, newlines, and whitespace. If you previously read the file with line numbers, you must strip them before matching.
replace_allNoWhether to replace all occurrences. Set to `true` to replace every instance instead. IMPORTANT: If `false` or omitted, the edit will fail if `old_string` appears more than once in the file. Defaults to `false` if not specified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does convey exact matching and modification of an existing file. It does not mention the failure on multiple matches or the replace_all default, though the parameter descriptions do cover those details.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the usage context is presented efficiently.

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?

The tool has four parameters, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description plus schema give an agent enough to call the tool correctly, though a brief behavioral warning about multiple matches would make it fully self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions already explain exact whitespace matching, line-number stripping, and replace_all behavior, so the main description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and mechanism: exact string replacement in a file. It also clarifies that the tool is for partial changes, which distinguishes it from siblings like write and remove.

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 phrase 'Useful for making partial changes to an existing file' gives clear context for when to use the tool, and implies it is not for full-file writes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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