local-agent-mcp

by ezra-y

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Write project file

write_file

DestructiveIdempotent

Write or overwrite a UTF-8 file in a specified project path, requiring explicit user consent for each operation.

Instructions

Create or replace one UTF-8 file after explicit user authorization.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the requirement of explicit user authorization and specifies UTF-8 encoding, providing context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action. However, it is extremely terse, and the lack of parameter details might be a trade-off, but for conciseness it is appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description leaves out critical context: how the project parameter relates, whether directories are created, failure behavior, and how it compares to similar file-writing tools. A destructive operation with three undocumented parameters needs more detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (project, path, content). The agent gets zero semantic guidance.

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?

The description states a clear action ('Create or replace one UTF-8 file') with a specific resource and scope. It is distinct from siblings like apply_patch, but it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_patch or run_command. The only usage note is 'after explicit user authorization', which is a safety precondition, not a tool-selection guideline.

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