Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astrograph

astrograph

by Thaylo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit

Destructive

Replace text in a file, blocking new code that duplicates existing structure to prevent redundancy.

Instructions

Edit file. Blocks if new code duplicates existing, warns on similarity.

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>",
      "old_string": "<old_string>",
      "new_string": "<new_string>"
    },
    "name": "edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute file path
new_stringYesReplacement code
old_stringYesExact text to replace (must be unique)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.6

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by revealing that it blocks duplicate new code and warns on similarity. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, helping the agent anticipate operational safeguards.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with 'Edit file.' and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with full schema and annotations, but no output schema exists, so the description could benefit from mentioning what the tool returns on success or failure. It also lacks usage context versus sibling tools. The core behavior is outlined, but a few gaps remain.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about duplicate checking for new_string, but this is more of a tool-level behavior than parameter-specific semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter details.

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 tool edits a file, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'write' tool, but the context of editing (replacing existing text) is implied and the duplicate-blocking behavior adds specificity.

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 like 'write' or when not to use it. The duplicate-blocking behavior hints at one use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative mention.

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