Skip to main content
Glama
PhialsBasement

GitHub MCP Server Plus

create_or_update_file

Create or update files in GitHub repositories to manage code changes and documentation with commit tracking.

Instructions

Create or update a single file in a GitHub repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner (username or organization)
repoYesRepository name
pathYesPath where to create/update the file
contentYesContent of the file
messageYesCommit message
branchYesBranch to create/update the file in
shaNoSHA of the file being replaced (required when updating existing files)

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function that implements the core logic for creating or updating a file in a GitHub repository using the GitHub API. Handles SHA fetching if not provided, encodes content, and makes PUT request.
    export async function createOrUpdateFile(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      path: string,
      content: string,
      message: string,
      branch: string,
      sha?: string
    ) {
      const encodedContent = Buffer.from(content).toString("base64");
    
      let currentSha = sha;
      if (!currentSha) {
        try {
          const existingFile = await getFileContents(owner, repo, path, branch);
          if (!Array.isArray(existingFile)) {
            currentSha = existingFile.sha;
          }
        } catch (error) {
          console.error("Note: File does not exist in branch, will create new file");
        }
      }
    
      const url = `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/contents/${path}`;
      const body = {
        message,
        content: encodedContent,
        branch,
        ...(currentSha ? { sha: currentSha } : {}),
      };
    
      const response = await githubRequest(url, {
        method: "PUT",
        body,
      });
    
      return GitHubCreateUpdateFileResponseSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the create_or_update_file tool.
    export const CreateOrUpdateFileSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner (username or organization)"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
      path: z.string().describe("Path where to create/update the file"),
      content: z.string().describe("Content of the file"),
      message: z.string().describe("Commit message"),
      branch: z.string().describe("Branch to create/update the file in"),
      sha: z.string().optional().describe("SHA of the file being replaced (required when updating existing files)"),
    });
  • index.ts:68-72 (registration)
    Registration of the create_or_update_file tool in the MCP server's tools list, including name, description, and input schema reference.
    {
      name: "create_or_update_file",
      description: "Create or update a single file in a GitHub repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(files.CreateOrUpdateFileSchema),
    },
  • Dispatcher handler in the MCP CallToolRequest that parses arguments using the schema and delegates to the main createOrUpdateFile function.
    case "create_or_update_file": {
      const args = files.CreateOrUpdateFileSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await files.createOrUpdateFile(
        args.owner,
        args.repo,
        args.path,
        args.content,
        args.message,
        args.branch,
        args.sha
      );
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
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 states the tool can 'create or update' files, implying mutation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when creating versus updating (e.g., the 'sha' parameter requirement for updates). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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. There's no wasted language or redundancy, 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or the create/update distinction, leaving the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'sha' and updating files, though the schema hints at this). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('create or update') and resource ('a single file in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'push_files_content' or 'push_files_from_path', 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 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over sibling tools like 'push_files_content', or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/PhialsBasement/mcp-github-server-plus'

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