Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
daimonos

daimonos

by beardfaceguy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

edit_file

Replace strings in a file by providing a path and alternating old/new text pairs. Confirms each change with applied status and diffs.

Instructions

String-replace edits. Returns {applied, diffs} confirming each change.

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>",
      "edits": "<edits>"
    },
    "name": "edit_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editsYes[old, new, old, new, ...] pairs
pathYesRelative path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions mutation and return confirmation, but fails to disclose error handling, atomicity, or permissions.

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?

Single sentence plus return info is efficient, but lacks structured flow or bullet points that could improve readability.

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?

Simple tool with two params and no annotations; description covers basic purpose and return, but misses edge cases and comparison to sibling tools.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions; tool description adds context that edits are old/new pairs but path description remains basic. Baseline 3 maintained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb (string-replace) and resource (file edits), and distinguishes from write_file by specifying in-place string replacement rather than full content rewriting.

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?

Implied usage for string replacements, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over write_file or batch, and no exclusion criteria.

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