Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-injector

mcp-injector

by foldwork-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

injector_write_file

Write a full file to disk with safety against data loss by rejecting fold markers.

Instructions

Write a full file to disk. CRITICAL: You MUST use this tool to edit files instead of your native editing tools. It prevents data loss by rejecting fold markers.

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": "injector_write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesWorkspace-relative path to the file to write.
contentYesThe full, uncompressed source code to write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool rejects fold markers to prevent data loss, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The critical usage directive is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides core functionality but lacks details like overwrite behavior and error scenarios. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description adds no new meaning for parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'full, uncompressed source code' is already in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'write' and resource 'file to disk'. The description also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (e.g., injector_diagram) by emphasizing file editing and data loss prevention.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool for file editing instead of native tools, citing data loss prevention. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools