Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Write File Text

write_file_text

Writes text content to a specified file, creating missing parent directories by default; set append to add to existing content instead of overwriting.

Instructions

Write text to a file. Creates parent dirs by default.

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_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
appendNoappend instead of overwriting
contentYes
create_dirsNocreate missing parent directories

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parent-directory creation but omits that the default mode overwrites an existing file (destructive), what permissions or errors to expect, and whether the write is atomic. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious default. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter file mutation tool with no annotations, the description should at minimum state the default overwrite behavior and how append relates to it.

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 coverage is 50%; append and create_dirs are documented in the schema, while path and content are self-evident strings. The description reinforces the create_dirs default but never mentions the append option, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Write text to a file" gives a specific verb and resource, making the operation unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling write_file_base64, so an agent must infer that binary content belongs elsewhere.

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 about when to prefer this over write_file_base64 or a session-based write, and no prerequisites or overwrite caveats. The only guidance offered is a default about directory creation, which is a behavior not a routing rule.

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