Revdoku

Bucket File Copy

bucket_file_copy

Copy one existing file to another path or bucket by storage reference, including archived sources. The target bucket must be writable; bytes are never downloaded or reuploaded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Bucket-relative file path, for example index.html or assets/app.js.
`bucket_id`	Yes	Revdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
`target_path`	No	Destination bucket-relative file path.
`target_folder`	No	Destination bucket-relative folder.
`revision_comment`	No	Optional comment recorded with the file revision or path operation.
`target_bucket_id`	No	Destination bucket id; omit when the destination is the source bucket.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`reason`	No
`file_id`	No
`skipped`	No
`old_path`	No
`byte_size`	No
`mime_type`	No
`operation`	No
`version_id`	No
`input_index`	No
`source_file_id`	No
`version_number`	No
`source_bucket_id`	No
`target_bucket_id`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it copies archived sources, never downloads or reuploads bytes, and enforces a writable target requirement. This helps the agent understand side effects, though it does not mention overwrite behavior, metadata preservation, or revision handling.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every clause adds value, and the structure immediately states the action followed by key constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Core behavior is well covered: purpose, destination options, archived support, writability, and server-side nature. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain around conflict behavior, revision comments, and metadata copying, but the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level 'by storage reference' concept but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'copy' and identifies the resource ('one existing file') and destination ('another path or bucket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bucket_file_move or bucket_file_rename. It also notes the capability to copy archived sources, adding precision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it copies by storage reference, can include archived sources, requires a writable target, and performs a server-side byte transfer. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus move/rename, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Revdoku tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlaps exist: bucket_file_move and bucket_file_rename both handle same-bucket renames/moves, and bucket_file_reorganize overlaps with copy/move operations. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries aren't always obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows predictable patterns: bucket_<verb> for bucket-level actions, bucket_file_<verb> for file operations, bucket_publication_<verb> for publications, and website_preview_* for previews. Minor deviations like bucket_create_from_template, bucket_set_public_slug, and bucket_update_publication_access deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the server is overweight for its scope. While the platform is feature-rich, many tools are narrowly specialized (e.g., bucket_publication_leads, bucket_lock_visibility_changes) and some are redundant (file_move vs file_rename vs file_reorganize), making the surface larger than necessary for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the full bucket lifecycle and most file operations, but there is no direct file delete tool (only via delete_missing in write_many or cross-bucket move soft-delete) and binary uploads are explicitly delegated to the CLI/REST. These are notable gaps for a complete file management workflow.

Bucket File Copy

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources