workflow-atlas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_file

Overwrite raw app files (CSS, HTML, JS, JSON, SVG, MD, TXT) to restyle or redesign the app's UI. Works with local tooling without guardrails on markup.

Instructions

Overwrite a raw app file to restyle/redesign the app. Allowed extensions: css, html, js, json, svg, md, txt. Cannot touch server/ or the demo seed (use the content tools for project data). No guardrails on the markup itself — local tooling.

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": "set_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that there are no guardrails on the markup (local tooling) and that the tool overwrites files. However, it does not clarify whether the tool creates files if they don't exist, what happens on error, or any authentication/permission needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with a clear structure: action first, then constraints. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the phrase 'to restyle/redesign the app' is slightly redundant with 'raw app file'.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message, updated file info, or errors). For a write operation with two parameters, this is a significant gap. Constraints are well-covered, but completeness for invocation understanding is lacking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'path' is the file path and 'content' is the new file content, but lacks details like path format (relative vs absolute), required extension, or character encoding. Provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool overwrites a raw app file for restyling/redesign, with allowed extensions and explicit constraints (cannot touch server/ or demo seed). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_file and list_files, and from other write tools like save_algorithm.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies when to use (overwriting app files for styling) and when not to (use content tools for project data). It lists allowed extensions but does not explicitly direct to get_file for reading or compare to other write tools. Still, context is clear.

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