This server provides line-oriented text file editing and reading capabilities over MCP, optimized for LLM tools with token-efficient partial access and hash-based concurrency control.
Read text file contents from multiple files and line ranges in one call, with file and range hashes for conflict detection
Create new text files with specified content (file must not already exist)
Append content to existing files with file-hash validation
Insert content before or after a specific line with hash validation
Delete specific line ranges from a file with hash validation
Patch/replace line ranges using both file hash and range hash to prevent concurrent-edit conflicts
Supports multiple files and multiple ranges per operation
Supports various encodings (utf-8, shift_jis, latin1, etc.)
Handles line-number shifts correctly when applying patches
Provides error handling for hash mismatches, invalid ranges, encoding issues, and permission errors
Integration for code coverage reporting, as indicated by the codecov badge in the README.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-text-editor show lines 15-30 from config.yaml"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides line-oriented text file editing capabilities through a standardized API. Optimized for LLM tools with efficient partial file access to minimize token usage.
To use this editor with Claude.app, add the following configuration to your prompt:
code ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json{
"mcpServers": {
"text-editor": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"mcp-text-editor"
]
}
}
}Related MCP server: RBT Document Editor
MCP Text Editor Server is designed to facilitate safe and efficient line-based text file operations in a client-server architecture. It implements the Model Context Protocol, ensuring reliable file editing with robust conflict detection and resolution. The line-oriented approach makes it ideal for applications requiring synchronized file access, such as collaborative editing tools, automated text processing systems, or any scenario where multiple processes need to modify text files safely. The partial file access capability is particularly valuable for LLM-based tools, as it helps reduce token consumption by loading only the necessary portions of files.
Line-based editing operations
Token-efficient partial file access with line-range specifications
Optimized for LLM tool integration
Safe concurrent editing with hash-based validation
Atomic multi-file operations
Robust error handling with custom error types
Comprehensive encoding support (utf-8, shift_jis, latin1, etc.)
Line-oriented text file editing and reading
Smart partial file access to minimize token usage in LLM applications
Get text file contents with line range specification
Read multiple ranges from multiple files in a single operation
Line-based patch application with correct handling of line number shifts
Edit text file contents with conflict detection
Flexible character encoding support (utf-8, shift_jis, latin1, etc.)
Support for multiple file operations
Proper handling of concurrent edits with hash-based validation
Memory-efficient processing of large files
Python 3.11 or higher
POSIX-compliant operating system (Linux, macOS, etc.) or Windows
Sufficient disk space for text file operations
File system permissions for read/write operations
Install Python 3.11+
pyenv install 3.11.6
pyenv local 3.11.6Install uv (recommended) or pip
curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | shCreate virtual environment and install dependencies
uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
uv pip install -e ".[dev]"Python 3.13+
POSIX-compliant operating system (Linux, macOS, etc.) or Windows
File system permissions for read/write operations
uvx mcp-text-editorTo install Text Editor Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-text-editor --client claudeInstall Python 3.13+
pyenv install 3.13.0
pyenv local 3.13.0Install uv (recommended) or pip
curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | shCreate virtual environment and install dependencies
uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
uv pip install -e ".[dev]"Start the server:
python -m mcp_text_editorThe server provides several tools for text file manipulation:
Get the contents of one or more text files with line range specification.
Request:
The tool accepts a files array. Each file contains one or more line ranges using
start and end. File paths must be absolute.
{
"files": [
{
"file_path": "/absolute/path/to/file.txt",
"ranges": [
{"start": 1, "end": 10},
{"start": 20, "end": null}
]
}
],
"encoding": "utf-8"
}Parameters:
file_path: Absolute path to the text file
start: First line to read (1-based)
end: Last line to read (inclusive); null reads through end of file
encoding: File encoding for all requested files (default: utf-8)
Response:
The top-level object is keyed by absolute file path. file_hash protects the
whole-file state; each range_hash protects the corresponding range.
{
"/absolute/path/to/file.txt": {
"file_hash": "sha256-hash-of-the-file",
"ranges": [
{
"content": "Lines 1-10 content",
"start": 1,
"end": 10,
"range_hash": "sha256-hash-of-this-range",
"total_lines": 50,
"content_size": 512
}
]
}
}Apply one or more non-overlapping patches to one file. Read the target ranges
first and pass both the current file_hash and each matching range_hash.
Request:
{
"file_path": "/absolute/path/to/file.txt",
"file_hash": "sha256-hash-from-get-response",
"patches": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 8,
"range_hash": "sha256-hash-of-lines-5-through-8",
"contents": "New content for lines 5-8\n"
}
],
"encoding": "utf-8"
}Important notes:
Obtain current hashes with get_text_file_contents immediately before editing.
Use start and end; line_start and line_end are not accepted.
Patches are applied from bottom to top and must not overlap.
Line numbers are 1-based.
Use append_text_file_contents, insert_text_file_contents, or
delete_text_file_contents for those specialized operations.
Use the same encoding for the read and patch calls.
Success response:
{
"result": "ok",
"file_hash": "sha256-hash-of-new-file-contents",
"reason": null,
"suggestion": null,
"hint": null
}Error response:
{
"result": "error",
"reason": "Content range hash mismatch",
"suggestion": "get",
"hint": "Please run get_text_file_contents first to get current content and hashes"
}Call get_text_file_contents for the exact range to replace.
Read file_hash and the range's range_hash from the keyed response.
Call patch_text_file_contents with those hashes and the same range.
If the result is an error, read the file again before retrying.
path = "/absolute/path/to/file.txt"
contents = await get_text_file_contents({
"files": [{
"file_path": path,
"ranges": [{"start": 5, "end": 8}]
}]
})
file_info = contents[path]
selected_range = file_info["ranges"][0]
result = await patch_text_file_contents({
"file_path": path,
"file_hash": file_info["file_hash"],
"patches": [{
"start": 5,
"end": 8,
"range_hash": selected_range["range_hash"],
"contents": "New content\n"
}]
})The server handles various error cases:
File not found
Permission errors
Hash mismatches (concurrent edit detection)
Invalid patch ranges
Overlapping patches
Encoding errors (when file cannot be decoded with specified encoding)
Line number out of bounds
File Path Validation: The server validates all file paths to prevent directory traversal attacks
Access Control: Proper file system permissions should be set to restrict access to authorized directories
Hash Validation: All file modifications are validated using SHA-256 hashes to prevent race conditions
Input Sanitization: All user inputs are properly sanitized and validated
Error Handling: Sensitive information is not exposed in error messages
Permission Denied
Check file and directory permissions
Ensure the server process has necessary read/write access
Hash Mismatch and Range Hash Errors
The file was modified by another process
Content being replaced has changed
Run get_text_file_contents to get fresh hashes
Encoding Issues
Verify file encoding matches the specified encoding
Use utf-8 for new files
Check for BOM markers in files
Connection Issues
Verify the server is running and accessible
Check network configuration and firewall settings
Performance Issues
Consider using smaller line ranges for large files
Monitor system resources (memory, disk space)
Use appropriate encoding for file type
Clone the repository
Create and activate a Python virtual environment
Install development dependencies: uv pip install -e ".[dev]"
Run tests: make all
Ruff for linting
Black for code formatting
isort for import sorting
mypy for type checking
pytest-cov for test coverage
Tests are located in the tests directory and can be run with pytest:
# Run all tests
pytest
# Run tests with coverage report
pytest --cov=mcp_text_editor --cov-report=term-missing
# Run specific test file
pytest tests/test_text_editor.py -vCurrent test coverage: 90%
mcp-text-editor/
├── mcp_text_editor/
│ ├── __init__.py
│ ├── __main__.py # Entry point
│ ├── models.py # Data models
│ ├── server.py # MCP Server implementation
│ ├── service.py # Core service logic
│ └── text_editor.py # Text editor functionality
├── tests/ # Test files
└── pyproject.toml # Project configurationMIT
Fork the repository
Create a feature branch
Make your changes
Run tests and code quality checks
Submit a pull request
This project uses Python type hints throughout the codebase. Please ensure any contributions maintain this.
All error cases should be handled appropriately and return meaningful error messages. The server should never crash due to invalid input or file operations.
New features should include appropriate tests. Try to maintain or improve the current test coverage.
All code should be formatted with Black and pass Ruff linting. Import sorting should be handled by isort.
Append content to an existing text file. The file must exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contents | Yes | Content to append to the file | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
| file_hash | Yes | Hash of the file contents for concurrency control. it should be matched with the file_hash when get_text_file_contents is called. | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to the text file. File path must be absolute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the existence constraint but does not disclose side effects (mutation) or concurrency behavior despite file_hash being required. Some transparency, but gaps remain.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and key constraint.
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?
Given the tool modifies files and has a concurrency mechanism, the description omits details about return values, error conditions (e.g., hash mismatch, file not found), and side effects. Not complete for the complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the file_hash parameter's role is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('append') and the resource ('text file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_text_file' and 'insert_text_file_contents'.
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 only states 'The file must exist' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_text_file' or 'insert_text_file_contents'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new text file with given content. The file must not exist already.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contents | Yes | Content to write to the file | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
| file_path | Yes | Path to the text file. File path must be absolute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses the creation action and file existence precondition, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if file exists), encoding usage, or side effects. It is 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence plus a condition. No unnecessary words. The essential information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers core purpose and a key precondition but omits details like error handling, encoding behavior, and any side effects (e.g., directory creation). It is adequate but could be more helpful.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond schema. It mentions 'given content' for contents (schema already says 'Content to write') and restates 'File path must be absolute' (already in schema). Encoding is not mentioned in description.
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?
Description clearly states 'Create a new text file with given content', which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds the precondition that the file must not already exist, distinguishing it from siblings like append or patch.
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 explicitly says 'The file must not exist already', guiding when to use (for new files) and implying when not to use (file already exists). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete specified content ranges from a text file. The file must exist. File paths must be absolute. You need to provide the file_hash comes from get_text_file_contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ranges | Yes | List of line ranges to delete | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
| file_hash | Yes | Hash of the file contents for concurrency control. it should be matched with the file_hash when get_text_file_contents is called. | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to the text file. File path must be absolute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the file must exist, paths must be absolute, and that a hash is required for concurrency control. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the hash mismatches, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or what the return value is. The destructive nature is implied by 'Delete' but not elaborated.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The three sentences each add necessary context: what it does, the file existence/path requirement, and the hash prerequisite. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and free of fluff.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about failure modes, hash mismatch behavior, and whether the operation is reversible. It covers the key prerequisites but leaves the agent guessing about what happens on success or failure. The sibling tools and schema provide some context, but the description itself is incomplete for a destructive operation.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the crucial context that file_hash comes from get_text_file_contents and that range_hash should match the one from get_text_file_contents. This adds value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers the basics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('specified content ranges from a text file'), and the key precondition that the file must exist. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like append_text_file_contents, insert_text_file_contents, and patch_text_file_contents by focusing on deletion of ranges.
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 gives clear context: the file must exist, paths must be absolute, and the file_hash must come from get_text_file_contents. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the deletion-specific wording and the mention of get_text_file_contents as a prerequisite provide adequate usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read text file contents from multiple files and line ranges. Returns file contents with hashes for concurrency control and line numbers for reference. The hashes are used to detect conflicts when editing the files. File paths must be absolute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | List of files and their line ranges to read | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, returns hashes for concurrency control, includes line numbers for reference, and requires absolute paths. It does not cover failure modes or size limits, but the core behavioral traits are clearly explained.
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?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second explains the return payload, and the third explains why hashes matter. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.
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?
The description, combined with the complete input schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. It describes the key return elements (hashes, line numbers) despite no output schema. Minor gaps around error behavior and exact return formatting keep it from a 5.
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 schema already documents every parameter, including the absolute path requirement and range semantics. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that paths must be absolute; the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'text file contents', and immediately clarifies it handles multiple files and line ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling editing/writing tools like append_text_file_contents and patch_text_file_contents.
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 clearly indicates this is for reading files before editing, since it returns hashes 'used to detect conflicts when editing the files.' It provides clear usage context and indirectly positions itself as the read counterpart to the editing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Insert content before or after a specific line in a text file. Uses hash-based validation for concurrency control. You need to provide the file_hash comes from get_text_file_contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Line number after which to insert content (mutually exclusive with 'before') | |
| before | No | Line number before which to insert content (mutually exclusive with 'after') | |
| contents | Yes | Content to insert | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
| file_hash | Yes | Hash of the file contents for concurrency control. it should be matched with the file_hash when get_text_file_contents is called. | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to the text file. File path must be absolute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses hash-based concurrency control and the prerequisite of file_hash. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., out-of-range line, hash mismatch) and the fact that the file is modified in place.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important prerequisite. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the main action and prerequisite, but lacks information on return value (no output schema) and error cases. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the concurrency control purpose of file_hash and the prerequisite relationship with get_text_file_contents. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool inserts content before or after a specific line in a text file, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like append_text_file_contents and patch_text_file_contents by specifying line-based insertion.
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 usage by requiring the file_hash from get_text_file_contents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Apply patches to text files with hash-based validation for concurrency control.you need to use get_text_file_contents tool to get the file hash and range hash every time before using this tool. you can use append_text_file_contents tool to append text contents to the file without range hash, start and end. you can use insert_text_file_contents tool to insert text contents to the file without range hash, start and end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patches | Yes | List of patches to apply | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') | utf-8 |
| file_hash | Yes | Hash of the file contents for concurrency control. | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to the text file. File path must be absolute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions concurrency control via hashes but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., hash mismatch, partial patches) or permissions required. Could be more transparent about failure modes.
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?
The description is a single, dense paragraph with no superfluous words. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately gives prerequisite and alternative usage, making it efficient for agent parsing.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and complex nested patches, the description provides necessary context: prerequisite hash retrieval and alternative tools for simpler edits. Missing details on return value and errors, but sufficient for typical use cases.
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%; each parameter has a description. The tool description adds context about hash usage and the need to fetch them from get_text_file_contents. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema beyond the prerequisite flow.
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?
The description clearly states the tool applies patches to text files with hash-based concurrency control. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that append and insert tools do not require range hashes and start/end parameters.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to use get_text_file_contents first to obtain file_hash and range_hash. Also provides alternatives (append, insert) for simpler operations, clearly delimiting when to use this tool and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2delete_text_file_contents2 fields changedInput schema / properties / ranges / items / properties / end / nullableAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / ranges / items / properties / end / typePrevious value: -[
- "integer",
- "null"
-]New value: +"integer"get_text_file_contents2 fields changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / ranges / items / properties / end / nullableAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / ranges / items / properties / end / typePrevious value: -[
- "integer",
- "null"
-]New value: +"integer"v1.0.0append_text_file_contentscreate_text_filedelete_text_file_contentsget_text_file_contentsinsert_text_file_contentspatch_text_file_contentsScored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: create, read, append, insert, delete range, and patch. However, patch_text_file_contents can be seen as overlapping with insert and delete since patches may subsume those operations, so agents might occasionally hesitate between them.
Most tools follow a verb_text_file_contents pattern, which is clear and consistent. The exception is create_text_file, which drops the _contents suffix and breaks the otherwise uniform convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a text file editor. Each tool covers a necessary primitive operation without redundant or bloated additions.
The server provides create, read, append, insert, delete-range, and patch operations, covering the core editing lifecycle. A whole-file overwrite or file deletion operation is missing, but most workflows can be accomplished with the existing tools.
A real timeline video editor for AI agents: journaled edits, FFmpeg/MLT rendering, exports
Read and write your Fresh Jots notes from Claude, Cursor, and any MCP client.
Persistent file storage for AI agents via MCP and curl. Upload, download, and version files.
Securely search and manage workspace context files for AI agents and teams.
