Skip to main content
Glama
saksham0712

MCP Complete Implementation Guide

by saksham0712

write_file

Write content to a file at a specified path for data storage, configuration management, or output generation.

Instructions

Write content to a file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe content to write to the file
pathYesThe path to the file to write

Implementation Reference

  • The writeFile handler method executes the write_file tool logic: writes content to the specified file path using fs.writeFileSync equivalent (promises), handles errors, and returns MCP-formatted TextContent success message.
    async writeFile(filePath, content) {
      try {
        await fs.writeFile(filePath, content, 'utf-8');
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `Successfully wrote to ${filePath}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to write file: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the write_file tool, registered in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, specifying path and content as required string parameters.
    {
      name: 'write_file',
      description: 'Write content to a file',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          path: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The path to the file to write',
          },
          content: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The content to write to the file',
          },
        },
        required: ['path', 'content'],
      },
    },
  • The write_file handler method executes the tool logic: creates parent directories if needed, writes content using Path.write_text, returns MCP TextContent success or raises error.
    async def write_file(self, file_path: str, content: str) -> list[types.TextContent]:
        """Write content to file"""
        try:
            path = Path(file_path)
            path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
            path.write_text(content, encoding="utf-8")
            return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=f"Successfully wrote to {file_path}")]
        except Exception as error:
            raise Exception(f"Failed to write file: {str(error)}")
  • The Tool object definition for write_file including inputSchema, used in the list_tools handler for registration.
    types.Tool(
        name="write_file",
        description="Write content to a file",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "path": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "The path to the file to write",
                },
                "content": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "The content to write to the file",
                },
            },
            "required": ["path", "content"],
        },
    ),
  • Direct implementation of write_file in the OpenAI proxy's tool execution switch, using fs.writeFile and returning success object.
    case 'write_file':
      await fs.writeFile(args.path, args.content, 'utf-8');
      return { success: true, message: `Successfully wrote to ${args.path}` };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Write content to a file' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing files, creates new ones, or appends. It doesn't mention error conditions, file system permissions needed, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a file system mutation tool.

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 maximally concise at just four words. Every word earns its place: 'Write' specifies the action, 'content' and 'file' specify what's being manipulated, and 'to' provides necessary grammatical structure. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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?

For a file system mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like whether the operation overwrites or appends, what permissions are required, what happens if the path doesn't exist, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'path') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't clarify path format requirements, content encoding, or file type implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('write') and target resource ('content to a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_file' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what type of writing occurs (overwrite, append, etc.), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like file permissions, when to use 'execute_command' for file operations instead, or how it relates to 'read_file' for file manipulation workflows. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/saksham0712/MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server