OpenCOOP MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_file

Create or overwrite files in a shared project by specifying relative path and content, with option to auto-create parent directories.

Instructions

Create or overwrite a file in the shared project.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Relative file path from project root
`content`	Yes	Full file content to write
`create_dirs`	No	Create parent directories if they do not exist

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.1Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the key destructive behavior ('overwrite') and scopes the operation to the shared project. With no annotations provided, it does not cover directory creation behavior, permissions, failure modes, or what happens to existing content beyond the overwrite implication.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action, resource scope, and overwrite behavior. It earns its place, though a brief note about directory creation behavior would have made it slightly more useful.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides the essential contract: create or overwrite a file. It omits return behavior and any handling details for missing parent directories, but schema and sibling context cover most selection needs.

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 path, content, and create_dirs are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter nuance, but it also does not introduce ambiguity, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Create or overwrite a file' in the shared project. This clearly separates it from sibling read/edit/search tools by emphasizing file creation and full overwrite.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use write_file versus edit_file or other file tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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