Txa_MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_file

Overwrite a file's full content by specifying its path and new content. Optionally allow writing outside the project root with explicit approval.

Instructions

Overwrite file content (Full).

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	New content
`filePath`	Yes	File path
`allow_external_access`	No	Set to true to allow writing files outside the project root. User must explicitly approve this action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.0.3Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses that the tool overwrites (destructive), but provides no further behavioral context. With no annotations, it fails to mention the allow_external_access parameter, potential permission issues, or what happens to existing content beyond 'overwrite'. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (4 words) and front-loaded, but not appropriately sized—it omits critical context. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It fails to explain return values, side effects, external access permissions, or any post-conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and a write operation, this is incomplete.

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 input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Overwrite file content') and identifies the resource (file). The term 'Full' signals complete replacement, distinguishing it from partial edits like replace_in_file or edit_code. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_in_file or quick_search_replace. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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