file-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

replace_literal

Replace literal text only when the exact number of occurrences matches the expected count, ensuring precise modifications.

Instructions

Replace literal text only when the exact expected occurrence count matches.

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>",
      "old_text": "<old_text>",
      "new_text": "<new_text>"
    },
    "name": "replace_literal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`bom`	No	preserve
`path`	Yes
`newline`	No	preserve
`encoding`	No	preserve
`new_text`	Yes
`old_text`	Yes
`base_hash`	No
`final_newline`	No	preserve
`expected_occurrences`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions the occurrence count condition but does not clarify what happens when count matches (replaces all? replaces exactly expected?), nor other effects like file modification, permissions, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is one sentence, no fluff. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness is good.

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?

With 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains only the core condition but misses context for many parameters and behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are not required, but other aspects are lacking.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'literal text' and 'expected occurrence count', leaving 7 parameters (path, encoding, newline, bom, etc.) unexplained. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 states it replaces literal text conditional on occurrence count matching, which clearly differentiates from replace_regex (regex) and replace_block. However, it could be more explicit about what 'replace' means (all occurrences or exactly expected_occurrences?).

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 use this tool versus siblings like replace_regex or replace_block. The description only states a condition, not usage context.

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

Deploy Server