Seafile MCP Server

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. While it mentions the operation returns an 'OperationResult', it doesn't explain what that contains, whether the move is atomic, if it overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns: OperationResult'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks important behavioral context like permissions, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for safe operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, path conventions, or library ID sourcing). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Move a file or directory') and resource ('within a Seafile library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'seafile_rename' or 'seafile_copy', which could involve similar file operations.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose 'seafile_move' over 'seafile_rename' (for renaming within same directory) or 'seafile_copy' (for duplication), nor any prerequisites or constraints for moving files/directories.

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