FileMCP

createFileTool

Creates a file with the specified name and content under the local AgentFiles directory, allowing MCP agents to persist generated text or data.

Instructions

Creates a file with the specified name and content.

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": {
      "fileName": "<fileName>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "createFileTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	The content to be written to the file.
`fileName`	Yes	The name of the file to be created.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The result of the file creation operation, indicating success or failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens if the file already exists (error vs overwrite), whether parent directories are created, encoding, or any permission requirements — all essential for a write tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and a directly competing overwriteFileTool sibling, the omission of collision/extraction behavior leaves the agent guessing on the most consequential call decision.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only restates name and content, adding no format, path, or encoding semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Creates a file') with the two inputs named. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling overwriteFileTool, which is the critical ambiguity for this family of tools.

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 indication of when to use this versus overwriteFileTool or createDirectoryTool, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The sibling list makes the missing create-vs-overwrite guidance a real gap.

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

Deploy Server