Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windows2-mcp

windows2-mcp

by verisoft-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

push_file

Destructive

Create or overwrite a file on the Appium driver machine by providing an absolute path and base64-encoded content. Requires modify_fs insecure feature enabled.

Instructions

Write a file to the filesystem of the machine running the driver. Requires the "modify_fs" insecure feature to be enabled on the Appium server.

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": {
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>",
      "base64Data": "<base64Data>"
    },
    "name": "push_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
base64DataYesFile contents, base64-encoded
remotePathYesAbsolute path to write the file to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds the non-obvious behavioral requirement that the modify_fs insecure feature must be enabled on the Appium server. The destructiveHint annotation already indicates destructive behavior, so the description supplements it with a specific configuration constraint. It does not, however, detail overwrite behavior or directory creation.

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 sentence that conveys the core action and a critical prerequisite. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple write operation with two well-described parameters and a destructive annotation, the description covers the main action and a key prerequisite. However, it is missing information about overwrite behavior, directory creation, return values (no output schema), and error states, which an agent might need to use the tool confidently.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (base64Data and remotePath) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Write a file') and the target ('filesystem of the machine running the driver'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pull_file, delete_file, and delete_folder by specifying the write operation. The added prerequisite (modify_fs feature) further clarifies the scope.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (requires modify_fs insecure feature), which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pull_file, other file operations), nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it.

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