Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
maic-server-fs-mcp

maic-server-fs-mcp

by maicFir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

writeFile

Writes or overwrites file content at a given path, enabling AI to create or modify files and code.

Instructions

向指定路径写入或覆盖文件内容，常用于生成/修改代码,允许 AI 修改文件代码或文本。

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "writeFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes要写入文件的内容
filePathYes目标文件路径,相对或绝对路径，例如 'package.json' 或 'src/index.js'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions write/overwrite but does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior without confirmation, permissions, or what happens if file doesn't exist (creates?). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence in Chinese, front-loaded with core purpose. No redundant information. Extremely concise.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 simple parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and usage context. Could mention overwrite behavior explicitly, but overall sufficient for a basic file write tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds use-case context but no new parameter-level meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes/overwrites file content at a specified path, used for code generation/modification. It distinguishes from siblings like readFile (read-only) and readDirectory (listing). Verb and resource are specific.

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?

Implies usage for writing/modifying code, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. However, based on sibling tools, the context is clear enough for 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