GPT Commander

write_file

Write or append text content to a file at a specified path, enforcing line limits to create and update files safely.

Instructions

Write a text file (line-limited)

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	Default
`path`	Yes
`append`	No
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only hints at a line limit but does not explain whether the file is overwritten or appended, permissions needed, behavior on existing files, or error conditions. The append parameter is not mentioned, leaving key behaviors undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-sized for a minimal description, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, line-limit specifics, or interaction with file system state. The sibling list includes similar tools, but no differentiation is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Path, content, and append are all left unexplained. The only hint is 'text file' implying content is textual, but this is insufficient to understand formatting, required encoding, or the role of append.

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 uses a specific verb 'write' and resource 'text file', making the primary action clear. The parenthetical 'line-limited' adds a qualifier, though its exact meaning is ambiguous. It distinguishes itself from read_file, but not from other write/edit tools like edit_block or ide_apply_workspace_edit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_block for partial edits, append flag for appending). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred.

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