Revdoku

Bucket File Move

bucket_file_move

Destructive

Move one file by storage reference. Same-bucket moves create a rename revision; cross-bucket moves copy then soft-delete the source without reuploading bytes.

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behavior beyond annotations: same-bucket creates a rename revision, cross-bucket copies then soft-deletes the source, and no reupload occurs. This clarifies what 'destructive' means and adds reversibility context.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and essential behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no redundant content.

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?

Covers the primary behavioral scenarios and source-destination semantics, but doesn't address interactions between optional parameters (target_path vs target_folder). Output schema likely covers return details, so this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds negligible parameter meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly clarifying that target_bucket_id omission means same-bucket destination.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Move one file by storage reference') and distinguishes between same-bucket and cross-bucket behavior, separating it from sibling tools like copy, rename, and reorganize.

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 behavior for same-bucket vs cross-bucket makes the use case clear, but no explicit alternatives are named. It implies when to use move over copy/rename, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 Move

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources