Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
oh-my-mcp

oh-my-mcp

by quyansiyuanwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

append_file

Append content to a file by specifying the file path and the text or data to add. Supports optional encoding.

Instructions

Append content to a 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": "append_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the file
contentYesContent to append
encodingNoFile encoding (default: utf-8)utf-8

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Append content to a file.' It does not disclose what happens if the file does not exist, permission requirements, or whether the operation is atomic. Encoding is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 sentence that is straightforward and easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could add more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the output format, error handling, or behavior for missing files. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score 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 verb 'append' and resource 'file' are specific, making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'write_file', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_file' or 'read_file'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where appending is appropriate.

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