Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Write File Base64

write_file_base64

Decode Base64 data and write the resulting bytes to a specified file, creating parent directories by default when needed.

Instructions

Write base64-decoded bytes to a file.

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>",
      "data_base64": "<data_base64>"
    },
    "name": "write_file_base64"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
create_dirsNo
data_base64Yes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about overwriting an existing file, whether the target directory must exist, permission or sandbox constraints, or whether the write is atomic — all critical for a destructive filesystem mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structure. Its brevity is achieved by omission rather than by precision, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused, but a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation needs more than one sentence. Overwrite semantics and the create_dirs behavior are the main omissions an agent would need to call this safely.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description only implicitly covers data_base64 via 'base64-decoded' and path via 'to a file'. The create_dirs flag is never mentioned, so its default-true behavior of auto-creating parent directories is invisible to the agent.

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?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource ('Write ... bytes to a file') and the 'base64-decoded' qualifier distinguishes it from the text-oriented sibling write_file_text and mirrors read_file_base64. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (write_file_text for plain text, create_directory for directories). The agent must infer the choice purely from the name.

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