OneDrive MCP Server

write_file

Create or overwrite files in OneDrive with specified content, automatically creating any missing folders in the path.

Instructions

Crea o sobreescribe un archivo con el contenido especificado. Crea las carpetas intermedias si no existen.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	Contenido del archivo
`filePath`	Yes	Ruta con prefijo del archivo a escribir

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: file creation/overwrite and automatic creation of intermediate directories. However, it does not mention potential side effects like data loss from overwriting, permission requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the folder-creation behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple write tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core action and a key side effect. Minor omissions like error scenarios or return behavior do not significantly hinder understanding.

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 both parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'contenido' and 'archivo'. The intermediate-folder creation is a behavioral trait, not a parameter detail.

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's function: 'Crea o sobreescribe un archivo' (creates or overwrites a file) with specified content. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_folder and read_file by targeting file writing with overwrite semantics.

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?

The description implies usage for writing files and creating intermediate folders, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like create_folder or copy_file. The context is clear, yet no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server