patchwork-os

createFile

Destructive

Create a file or directory in your workspace with optional content, overwrite, and open-after-create.

Instructions

Create file or directory within workspace. Uses VS Code when connected, native fs fallback.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "createFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	No	Initial file content (default: empty)
`filePath`	Yes	Workspace or absolute path for new file or directory
`overwrite`	No	Overwrite if file already exists (default: false)
`isDirectory`	No	Create a directory instead of a file (default: false)
`openAfterCreate`	No	Open file in editor after creation (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by noting the VS Code vs native fs fallback behavior and the ability to create directories. No contradiction with annotations.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the main purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the 5 parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers core functionality well. It could mention error conditions or permission needs, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 coverage, each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds little parameter-specific information beyond confirming directory creation and the fallback mechanism.

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 creates a file or directory within the workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteFile, renameFile, editText by focusing on creation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editText for existing files or overwrite scenarios. It provides no when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance, though the schema partially covers overwrite behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server