Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FolderBridge MCP

FolderBridge MCP

by MoonTzai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create or exactly edit one file

edit_file
Destructive

Edit files in a bounded workspace with conflict-safe updates, using exact replacements and SHA verification for atomic changes.

Instructions

Atomically create a UTF-8 file, or edit one using unique exact replacements and a current whole-file SHA-256. workspace(read) returns that SHA for small files; use file_info for larger files. When multiple workspaces are configured, pass the same workspace_id used for inspection. Cannot delete files, edit the local task config, follow links, or access credential-like paths.

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>"
    },
    "name": "edit_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
replacementsNo
workspace_idNoRequired when server_info lists multiple workspaces.
create_contentNoUsed only when creating a new file.
expected_sha256NoRequired when editing an existing file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.25

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds important context: atomicity, exact replacement matching, SHA requirement, and explicit forbidden actions (delete, config, links, credentials).

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?

Concise single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers SHA, workspace_id, and limitations without unnecessary detail.

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?

Covers creation vs. editing, SHA requirements, workspace_id, and limitations; with no output schema, return values need no explanation, though failure behavior on non-unique replacements could be mentioned.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description clarifies replacement uniqueness, SHA acquisition, and workspace_id usage, though it adds little for the obvious path parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (create/edit) and resource (UTF-8 file), clearly distinguishing from siblings by noting exact replacements, SHA-256, and forbidden operations like deletion or credential access.

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?

Provides practical guidance on obtaining the SHA via workspace or file_info, workspace_id handling, and constraints, but does not explicitly name an alternative like write_file.

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