Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shapeyourphone

shapeyourphone

by rachitkj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

preferences_write

Save updated markdown to the phone owner's preferences file while preserving their original wording, adding new notes without erasing existing text.

Instructions

Replace the owner's preferences file with updated markdown. Keep their words; add, don't erase.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "preferences_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoadb serial, only needed when several phones are connected
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying to preserve the owner's words and add rather than erase, which clarifies the intended merge-like behavior despite the word 'replace'.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the preservation rule is stated compactly.

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?

For a low-complexity two-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and preservation behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not mention the optional device parameter or explicitly route against sibling tools.

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 coverage is 50%: the device parameter is documented in the schema, while content is not. The description adds that content is updated markdown and should preserve existing wording, but it does not explain the device parameter or provide format details beyond that.

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 a specific verb and resource: replacing the owner's preferences file with updated markdown. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling preferences_read tool, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the write-oriented verb and the instruction to keep existing words while adding content. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of preferences_read, suggest, or other preference-related tools.

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