Skip to main content
Glama
seanshin0214

Dr. QuantMaster MCP Server

by seanshin0214

write_analysis_file

Save analysis code and results to a file for documentation and reuse in quantitative research workflows.

Instructions

분석 코드/결과를 파일로 저장

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes파일 내용
filenameYes파일명
directoryNo저장 디렉토리
encodingNo인코딩 (기본: utf-8)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'write_analysis_file' tool. It extracts the content, filename, and directory from the input arguments and returns a response simulating file writing (notes that actual fs access is required).
    async function handleWriteAnalysisFile(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      const content = args.content as string;
      const filename = args.filename as string;
      const directory = (args.directory as string) || ".";
    
      // Note: Actual file writing would require fs module
      return {
        status: "File writing capability - requires file system access",
        filename,
        directory,
        content_preview: content.substring(0, 200) + "..."
      };
    }
  • The tool registration in the tools array, including the input schema defining parameters: content (string, required), filename (string, required), directory (string, optional), encoding (string, optional).
      name: "write_analysis_file",
      description: "분석 코드/결과를 파일로 저장",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          content: { type: "string", description: "파일 내용" },
          filename: { type: "string", description: "파일명" },
          directory: { type: "string", description: "저장 디렉토리" },
          encoding: { type: "string", description: "인코딩 (기본: utf-8)" },
        },
        required: ["content", "filename"],
      },
    },
  • The dispatch case in the handleToolCall switch statement that routes calls to the write_analysis_file tool to its handler function.
    case "write_analysis_file":
      return handleWriteAnalysisFile(args);
    case "create_project_structure":
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. While '저장' (save) implies a write operation, it doesn't specify file system permissions needed, whether files are overwritten or appended, error conditions, or what happens if the directory doesn't exist. For a file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient phrase that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward file-writing tool and gets directly to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like file overwrite behavior, permission requirements, error handling, or what constitutes successful completion. Given the potential complexity of file system operations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain relationships between parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when 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 '분석 코드/결과를 파일로 저장' clearly states the tool's purpose as saving analysis code/results to a file, using a specific verb ('저장' - save) and resource ('파일' - file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_results_section' or 'replication_package' which might also involve file writing operations, preventing 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. With many sibling tools that might involve file operations or analysis output, there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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/seanshin0214/quantmaster-mcp-server'

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