file-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

replace_block

Replace a marker-delimited block in a file while preserving encoding, newline style, and using base-hash for integrity verification.

Instructions

Replace a marker-delimited block with base-hash protection and style preservation.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "start_marker": "<start_marker>",
      "end_marker": "<end_marker>",
      "replacement": "<replacement>"
    },
    "name": "replace_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`bom`	No	preserve
`mode`	No	between
`path`	Yes
`newline`	No	preserve
`encoding`	No	preserve
`base_hash`	No
`end_marker`	Yes
`occurrence`	No
`replacement`	Yes
`start_marker`	Yes
`final_newline`	No	preserve

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions base-hash protection and style preservation but does not disclose other behaviors like file modification, session requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and unique features.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 4 enums, no schema descriptions), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for 'base-hash protection', 'style preservation', and marker semantics, which are critical for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description provides only high-level context about markers and block replacement. It does not explain key parameters like mode, occurrence, bom, or newline, leaving agents to infer from names and enums.

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 verb ('Replace') and the resource ('marker-delimited block'), and adds unique details like base-hash protection and style preservation, distinguishing it from siblings like replace_literal and replace_regex.

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 implies the tool is for blocks delimited by markers but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude cases. Given sibling tools, more guidance would be beneficial.

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

Deploy Server