MCP Python Interpreter

write_file

Write content to a specified file with options to set encoding, overwrite existing files, and choose file paths relative or absolute in the Python environment.

Instructions

Write content to a file in the working directory or system-wide if allowed.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the file to write (relative to working directory or absolute if system access is enabled)
    content: Content to write to the file
    overwrite: Whether to overwrite the file if it exists (default: False)
    encoding: File encoding (default: utf-8)

Returns:
    str: Status message about the file writing operation

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`content`	Yes
`encoding`	No	utf-8
`file_path`	Yes
`overwrite`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2025

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions overwrite and encoding defaults, but omits behaviors like creating directories, appending, or error handling. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Concise description followed by structured Args list. Focused and easy to parse, though the Args section could be integrated into the main description.

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?

Return type mentioned (status message) but no output schema. Lacks details on intermediate directory creation, error cases, or performance implications. For a file write tool, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for all 4 parameters: file_path, content, overwrite (with default false), encoding (with default utf-8). Provides clear context beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it writes content to a file, with context about working directory vs system-wide. Differentiates from read_file and write_python_file, though could be more explicit.

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?

Implies usage by mentioning system-wide access, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_python_file. No exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server