MCP SmallEdit

by MikeyBeez

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between sed_edit and perl_edit as both handle text editing with different engines, and awk_process also overlaps in processing capabilities. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent might occasionally confuse these for similar tasks.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun or noun_verb structures, such as awk_process, diff_preview, and line_edit. Minor deviations exist, like 'help' being a single word and 'quick_replace' using an adjective, but overall it's readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a file editing utility server. Each tool serves a specific function, such as editing, backup management, or help, without redundancy, making it appropriate for the domain's complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core file editing operations, backup management, and help, but there are minor gaps, such as no direct tool for creating or deleting files, which agents might need to work around. However, it supports common workflows like editing, diffing, and restoring backups effectively.
Average 3.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool processes files using AWK but lacks critical details: whether it modifies files in-place or creates new ones, what permissions or prerequisites are needed, error handling, or output behavior beyond the optional outputFile parameter. For a file-processing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Process files using AWK') and adds clarifying examples ('for more complex operations like column manipulation, calculations, or conditional processing'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.
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?
Given the complexity of a file-processing tool with AWK scripts, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, output content), how errors are handled, or dependencies like AWK installation. For a tool with three parameters and potential side effects, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (file, script, outputFile) clearly. The description implies file processing and script execution but doesn't elaborate on formats, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Process files using AWK for more complex operations like column manipulation, calculations, or conditional processing.' It specifies the verb ('process'), resource ('files'), and scope ('using AWK'), distinguishing it from siblings like sed_edit or perl_edit by focusing on AWK's capabilities for complex operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., line_edit might also handle files).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'more complex operations' but doesn't specify what qualifies as complex or when to choose AWK over other tools like sed_edit or perl_edit from the sibling list. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows a diff preview without making changes, which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify output format, error handling, or any constraints like file size limits or supported diff formats. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with files.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of file manipulation and diff generation, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the preview output looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of diff output or how 'command' interacts with 'tool'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview what changes would be made by showing a diff.' It specifies the verb ('preview') and resource ('changes'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_replace' or 'sed_edit' that might also involve changes or diffs.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this preview is preferred over direct editing tools like 'sed_edit' or 'perl_edit', leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether edits are destructive or reversible, error handling, or side effects like file locking. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error cases, or return values, leaving significant gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation despite the clear purpose and concise structure.
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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying line-based targeting, which is already covered by parameter descriptions like 'Line number to edit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('specific lines'), specifying the target by 'number or range'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sed_edit' or 'perl_edit' by focusing on line-based editing rather than pattern-based or multi-file operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sed_edit' or 'quick_replace'. The description implies usage for line-specific edits but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on permissions, output format, pagination, or error handling. It fails to address whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, or other behavioral traits, leaving significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error responses) or provide behavioral context, making it inadequate for full agent understanding despite the clear schema.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('directory' and 'pattern') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('backup files in a directory'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'restore_backup' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restore_backup' or other file-related tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (overwrites the original file), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure (e.g., if no backup exists).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like behavioral risks (e.g., data loss), error handling, and output expectations, leaving gaps for safe agent invocation.
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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying '.bak' extension context, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how 'keepBackup' affects the restore process).
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 clearly states the action ('Restore') and resource ('a file from its most recent backup'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_backups' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit contrast.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a backup to exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_backups' for checking available backups first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core action but doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Apply sed pattern' but not explicit), what happens on errors, whether it shows previews before applying changes, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe usage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a batch text-editing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, modified file list), error handling, or safety considerations like the backup parameter's effect. For a potentially destructive operation, more context is needed.
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 schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how the pattern interacts with filePattern or directory, or clarify backup behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Apply sed pattern') and target ('to multiple files matching a glob pattern'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like sed_edit or quick_replace, which likely have overlapping functionality for text editing.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sed_edit, quick_replace, or perl_edit. It mentions the scope ('multiple files matching a glob pattern') but doesn't specify when this batch operation is preferred over single-file edits or other text processing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions that Perl one-liners are 'more powerful than sed' and have 'better cross-platform support', which adds some behavioral context. However, it fails to disclose critical traits: it doesn't clarify that this is a destructive write operation (edits files in-place), doesn't mention permissions or error handling, and doesn't explain the backup behavior implied by the 'backup' parameter. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Edit files using Perl one-liners') and adds value with comparative context. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a file-editing mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks (e.g., file modification, backup defaults), error cases, or output expectations. The comparative note adds some context, but for a tool that alters files, more completeness is needed.
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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit files using Perl one-liners'. It specifies the verb ('Edit') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes it from alternatives by mentioning 'more powerful than sed, better cross-platform support'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'sed_edit' or 'line_edit' by name, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by comparing Perl one-liners to sed and noting cross-platform advantages, which suggests when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'sed_edit'. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and doesn't mention specific alternatives by name, resulting in a score of 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool provides 'detailed help and examples,' which gives some behavioral insight (it's informational/read-only). However, it lacks details on what the help includes (e.g., syntax, parameters, examples), whether it's interactive, if there are rate limits, or how results are formatted. For a help tool with no annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Get detailed help and examples for smalledit tools.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant information, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be enhanced. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'detailed help and examples' entails, such as the structure of the output or specific use cases. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the behavioral aspects, but it's minimally adequate.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'tool' documented as 'Tool name for help (e.g., "sed_edit", "perl_edit") or "all" for overview.' The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of help output or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed help and examples for smalledit tools.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed help and examples'), and identifies the domain ('smalledit tools'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from potential sibling tools that might also provide help or documentation, though in this context it's likely the primary help tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'smalledit tools,' suggesting it's for tools in that suite. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if other tools offer help or documentation), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is somewhat inferred but not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency characteristics but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (though implied by 'edits'), error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second provides valuable context about appropriate use cases. There's zero wasted language 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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the 'what' and gives some usage guidance, but lacks important behavioral information about safety, permissions, and error handling that would be crucial for an AI agent to use this tool responsibly.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions 'sed patterns' which relates to the 'pattern' parameter, but this is already covered by the schema's example. No additional semantic context is provided for any parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('make small edits', 'pattern replacements', 'simple text transformations') and identifies the resource ('files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'awk_process' and 'perl_edit' by specifying 'sed patterns', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'quick_replace' or 'line_edit' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning 'efficient for single-line changes, pattern replacements, and simple text transformations', which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the tool's literal text matching behavior ('literal, not regex'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like whether the operation is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), error handling, or file permissions needed.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Simple find and replace across a file') and adds a crucial constraint ('without regex'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (file editing operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and key constraint but lacks details on behavioral aspects like destructiveness, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('find and replace') and resource ('across a file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'without regex' (unlike sed_edit or perl_edit which likely use regex). It's not a tautology of the name 'quick_replace'.
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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('without regex'), which helps differentiate it from regex-based siblings like sed_edit and perl_edit. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-smalledit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-smalledit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-smalledit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-smalledit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-smalledit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-smalledit)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-smalledit'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server