Bot-Hosting.net

Move files

files_move

Destructive

Move files or folders into a directory of the SAME deployment; the directory is created if missing. Never overwrites: a name already taken there is reported, not replaced. There is no move between two deployments: copying a file across leaves the original, so that is a copy, not a move.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "files": "<files>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "files_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`to`	Yes	Destination directory, e.g. 'test' or 'src/old'. Created in this same call if missing, so no files.mkdir first. Empty or '/' = the root.
`files`	Yes	Paths from the deployment root, e.g. ['index.js', 'lib/util.js'].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully narrows this by promising no overwrite and reporting name collisions rather than replacing them, which materially changes how the agent should retry. It does not cover permission requirements or retry/partial-failure behavior across a multi-file batch, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: scope, non-overwrite behavior, and the no-cross-deployment-move rule. The most consequential scoping fact leads, and there is no filler.

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?

For a destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects on missing directories, and conflict behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It omits what a successful move returns (presumably the new paths) and how batch failures among up to 50 files are reported.

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 coverage is 67%: the `to` and `files` parameters already explain the destination directory, root shortcut, and auto-creation, which the description largely restates. The undescribed `id` parameter is only implicitly clarified as identifying the same deployment, so the description adds modest meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (move) and resource (files or folders) and immediately scopes it to a single deployment with the uppercase 'SAME deployment'. It also separates this operation from a cross-deployment copy in the final sentence, so an agent can distinguish it from files_copy and deployments_move without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit prerequisite shortcut ('no files.mkdir first') and an explicit exclusion ('There is no move between two deployments'), routing the cross-deployment case to a copy instead. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are stated rather than inferred.

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

All Bot-Hosting.net tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?