The MCP File Server allows AI models to interact with the local file system through a standardized API. You can:
Create Files: Generate new files with specified content
Read Files: Access the contents of existing files
List Directory Contents: Display files and directories with detailed information
Performance Monitoring: Utilize built-in Sentry integration for error tracking and performance insights
Provides file system operations for the local environment, including creating files with specified content, reading file contents, and listing directory contents with detailed information.
Integrates with Sentry for error tracking and performance monitoring of file operations, configurable through the SENTRY_DSN environment variable.
Uses Zod for schema validation of file operation parameters, ensuring proper input formatting when creating files, reading files, or listing directory contents.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP File Server create a new file called notes.txt with my meeting notes"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation providing file system operations through a standardized interface.
The MCP File Server enables AI models to perform file operations on the local file system through a standardized API. It's built using the Model Context Protocol SDK and provides tools for reading, creating, and listing files.
Related MCP server: filesystem-mcp-server
Create Files: Create new files with specified content
Read Files: Read the contents of existing files
List Directory Contents: List files and directories with detailed information
Performance Monitoring: Built-in Sentry integration for error tracking and performance monitoring
npm installStart the MCP File Server:
node src/index.jsThe server communicates through stdin/stdout using the MCP protocol.
Creates a new file at the specified path with the provided content.
Parameters:
filePath: Path where the file should be created
content: Content to write to the file
Returns:
Success message with file path and size information
Reads the content of a file at the specified path.
Parameters:
filePath: Path to the file to read
Returns:
The content of the file
Lists files and directories at the specified path.
Parameters:
path: Directory path to list contents from
Returns:
A markdown table containing file names, sizes, and types
SENTRY_DSN: Sentry Data Source Name for error tracking (optional)
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk: The MCP SDK package
zod: Schema validation
@sentry/node: Error tracking and performance monitoring
Examples of how to call these tools through the MCP protocol:
{
"name": "createfile",
"params": {
"filePath": "example/test.txt",
"content": "Hello, world!"
}
}{
"name": "readfile",
"params": {
"filePath": "example/test.txt"
}
}{
"name": "listfiles",
"params": {
"path": "example"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Content to write to the file | |
| filePath | Yes | Path where the file should be created |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Path to the file to read |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: createfile for creating files, listfiles for listing files, and readfile for reading files. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool for each task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (createfile, listfiles, readfile) with no deviations. The naming is uniform and predictable, using lowercase letters and clear action-object combinations throughout.
With only three tools, the server feels thin for a file management domain, as it lacks essential operations like update, delete, or write to files. While the count is minimal, it covers basic CRUD aspects but leaves notable gaps in functionality.
The tool set is significantly incomplete for file management, missing critical operations such as updatefile, deletefile, and writefile. This creates dead ends for agents trying to perform common file workflows, leading to potential failures in tasks requiring modification or deletion.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Securely search and manage workspace context files for AI agents and teams.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Browse and manage files in your Moxt AI workspace from any MCP client.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codyde/mcp-file-tool'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
