Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Python Interpreter

MCP Python Interpreter

by yzfly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

write_file

Write content to files in Python environments. Specify file path, content, and whether to overwrite existing files.

Instructions

Write content to a file.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the file to write
    content: Content to write
    overwrite: Whether to overwrite if exists

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
file_pathYes
overwriteNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / encoding
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "utf-8",
-  "title": "Encoding",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "write_fileOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overwrite' behavior, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the file path is invalid or permissions are insufficient), side effects, or response format details.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting could be slightly more polished for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and an output schema exists, but it lacks behavioral context like error cases or system dependencies, leaving gaps for safe usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters ('file_path', 'content', 'overwrite') in the Args section, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include more details like path format or content encoding.

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 tool's purpose with 'Write content to a file', specifying the verb 'write' and resource 'file'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file', though the action is distinct by nature.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as file permissions or system constraints, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_file' for comparison.

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