Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP CLI Chat

MCP CLI Chat

by prem-thatikonda29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit_doc_contents

Edit a document's content by replacing an exact old string with a new string using the document ID.

Instructions

Can be used to edit the contents of a doc

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>",
      "old_str": "<old_str>",
      "new_str": "<new_str>"
    },
    "name": "edit_doc_contents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesID of the document we want to edit
new_strYesContent that's to be replacing the old_str.
old_strYesContent to replace. Must match exactly, including whitespaces

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose whether replacement targets one occurrence or all occurrences, what happens if old_str is not found, or whether the edit is reversible.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no redundancy. The passive phrase 'Can be used to' is unnecessary filler, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and parameter schema cover the basic operation. It is complete enough for a straightforward edit, though it omits replacement behavior details.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'edit' and the resource 'contents of a doc', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_doc_contents, create_doc, delete_doc, and allow_path. However, it does not explicitly mention that edits are performed by replacing old_str with new_str.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions such as the document needing to exist or old_str needing to be present. Usage is only implied by the verb 'edit'.

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