TextEdit-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_rtf_document

Create formatted RTF documents compatible with TextEdit by supplying content and an output path. Choose business, technical, meeting, or custom templates for structured output.

Instructions

Create a formatted RTF document with TextEdit compatibility

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": {
      "content": "<content>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "create_rtf_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	Document content with formatting markup
`template`	No	Document template to use	business
`output_path`	Yes	Path where the RTF file will be saved

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 24, 2026

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 carries the full burden. It does not say whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, what permissions or platform requirements apply, or what the tool returns. For a file-writing mutation, these are material gaps.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why behavior and usage remain underspecified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should cover write semantics and outcomes. It leaves overwrite behavior, return value, and template effects unexplained, which is not enough for a file-creating tool.

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 each of the three parameters (content, template with its enum, output_path) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format syntax, encoding, or template-behavior detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (RTF document) plus a distinguishing attribute (TextEdit compatibility). With no sibling tools, there is no ambiguity to resolve, but it is not a tautology — an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to use an RTF output vs. another document format). The TextEdit compatibility note hints at a use context but does not state a selection condition.

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

create_rtf_documentC