Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
document-manager-mcp

document-manager-mcp

by rfbatista
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

write_doc

Write or overwrite markdown documentation files, automatically creating parent folders. Accepts document type, slug, and content.

Instructions

Write or overwrite a documentation file. Content must be markdown. Creates parent folder if needed.

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": {
      "docType": "<docType>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesFilename or slug (e.g. my-feature.md)
contentYesMarkdown content to write
docTypeYesDocument type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'overwrite' (destructive behavior) and 'Creates parent folder if needed' (side effect), plus the markdown requirement. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention return values or auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the main action and constraints. Every piece of information earns its place; no filler.

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 simple write tool, the description covers core behavior (write/overwrite, content type, folder creation). It doesn't address sibling differentiation (create_doc) or return values, but the schema covers params and the behavior is adequately described for a low-complexity 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight—'Content must be markdown' echoes the schema's 'Markdown content to write' and 'Creates parent folder if needed' is more about folder side effects than parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Write or overwrite') and resource ('documentation file'), and notes constraints. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tool 'create_doc', so it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 on when to choose this tool over create_doc or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the markdown constraint, so the agent gets no help choosing between write and create alternatives.

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