Replace an exact string in a remote file without transferring the whole file. The old string must match uniquely to prevent edits in the wrong place.
在远端文件里做精确字符串替换，无需传整个文件。old_string 必须唯一匹配，否则报错——这是为了防止改错地方。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 文件路径 | |
| newString | Yes | 替换后的内容 | |
| oldString | Yes | 要被替换的原始片段，需精确匹配（含缩进） | |
| replaceAll | No | 是否替换全部匹配，默认 false（要求唯一匹配） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the failure mode (error on non-unique match) and its rationale (preventing edits in the wrong place), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or atomicity—important traits for a remote mutation tool.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the critical uniqueness constraint. No filler; each clause earns its place.
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?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main error condition but omits return behavior and permission/auth requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the old_string uniqueness constraint already documented in the replaceAll field, adding rationale but little new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb (precise string replacement) and resource (remote file), and the phrase '无需传整个文件' implicitly distinguishes it from remote_write by noting the whole file need not be transferred. Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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?
The description implies the use case (edit a remote file without transferring the whole file) and states the key precondition (old_string must uniquely match), but it never explicitly says when to choose this over remote_write or remote_read. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.