patchwork-os

editText

Destructive

Apply atomic text insertions, deletions, and replacements at specific line and column positions in workspace files.

Instructions

Insert/delete/replace text at 1-based line/col. Atomic multi-edit. Uses VS Code or native fs. Workspace files only.

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>",
      "edits": "<edits>"
    },
    "name": "editText"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`save`	No	Save the file after applying edits (default: false)
`edits`	Yes	Array of edit operations to apply atomically
`filePath`	Yes	Workspace or absolute path to the file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so mutation is clear. The description adds that edits are atomic and uses VS Code or native fs, which informs about execution context. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure, file permissions, or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information (insert/delete/replace, 1-based, atomic). Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, updated content). It provides workspace-only constraint but lacks return value details and error scenarios. Sufficient for a simple mutation tool but not fully complete.

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 input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds the context of 1-based positions and atomicity but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 verb (insert/delete/replace), the resource (text in files), and the constraints (1-based line/col, atomic multi-edit, workspace files only). It distinguishes from siblings like 'replaceBlock' or 'searchAndReplace' by specifying atomic multi-editing and line/column positioning.

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 use for editing text files with line/col precision but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replaceBlock' or 'stageEdit'. No guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided.

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

Deploy Server