Skip to main content
Glama

workspace_write

Create or overwrite files in a game project workspace, automatically creating parent folders and optionally appending content to existing files.

Instructions

Create or overwrite a workspace file; parent folders are created. Set append=true to add to the end instead.

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": "workspace_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath relative to the workspace root.
appendNo
contentYes
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does the essential work: it discloses that existing content is overwritten (a destructive act) and that missing parent folders are created as a side effect. It omits return behavior, error handling, and permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive overwrite behavior front-loaded and the append variant as a trailing qualifier. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers destination behavior and the append flag but leaves the 'project' parameter and any response/permission expectations unaddressed. It is adequate 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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate: it usefully explains that append=true appends rather than replaces, and overwrite semantics hint at how content is applied. The 'project' parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a material gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Create or overwrite a workspace file') and immediately clarifies scope through the overwrite and parent-folder note. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as workspace_read or workspace_create_folder, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It explains the append-mode variant ('Set append=true to add to the end instead'), which is genuine usage guidance for one branch. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over workspace_move, workspace_create_folder, or workspace_delete, so the broader when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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