Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OmniCommanderMCP

OmniCommanderMCP

by kaannsaydamm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

write_file

Create or overwrite a UTF-8 text file by specifying the file path and content.

Instructions

Create or replace a UTF-8 text file.

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": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create or replace' (mutation) and 'UTF-8' (encoding), but omits critical traits: does it overwrite silently? fail on existing? require directory existence? return status? These gaps hinder safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is efficient but overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. It earns its place by stating purpose, but lacks structure that could front-load key behavioral cues, resulting in minimal informational density.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens when the file exists, whether parent directories are created, error behavior, or any return value. Agents require more context for reliable use.

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%, yet the description does not explain either parameter. It offers no detail on path format (absolute/relative), content size limits, or encoding constraints. The agent must guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 'Create or replace a UTF-8 text file' uses a specific verb ('create/replace') and resource ('UTF-8 text file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file, copy_file, or delete_path. It accurately conveys the core function of writing textual content.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_file or create_directory. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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