Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Txa_MCP

Txa_MCP

by TXAVLOG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

replace_in_file

Find and replace a text string in a file. Supports modifying files outside the project root when explicitly approved.

Instructions

Replace text string in a file.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "oldText": "<oldText>",
      "newText": "<newText>"
    },
    "name": "replace_in_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
newTextYesNew text
oldTextYesText to replace
filePathYesFile path
allow_external_accessNoSet to true to allow modifying files outside the project root. User must explicitly approve this action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.0.3

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It omits whether the replacement is in-place, affects all occurrences, requires permissions, or handles errors. This is a significant gap for a file-modifying operation.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on tautology, offering little beyond the tool name. Still, it earns its place by clearly naming the object of the action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential context such as return values, error conditions, or the need for user approval on external access. It is under-specified and could lead to misuse.

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%, including clear descriptions for oldText, newText, filePath, and allow_external_access. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action 'Replace text string in a file', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like write_file, edit_code, or quick_search_replace, which also modify content in files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have no clue when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools