Creates a tar.gz backup of a remote file or directory with a SHA-256 checksum in a dated tag folder under ~/ops-backups, so you can restore before edits.
Back up a remote file or directory (tar.gz) to ~/ops-backups/-/ with a sha256 file. Use before editing via exec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Short name, e.g. xray-chain | |
| host | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | Absolute remote path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that a tar.gz archive and sha256 file are created under a date-tag directory, but it omits important operational details such as permissions, whether existing backups are overwritten, and failure behavior.
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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core operation and destination are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage note.
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?
For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, destination layout, and invocation context. Minor gaps remain around host semantics and backup-overwrite behavior, but the definition is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 67%, and the description adds some meaning by showing that tag is embedded in the backup directory name and that path refers to a remote file or directory. However, host remains unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a notable gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: backing up a remote file or directory. It also specifies the archive format (tar.gz), destination pattern, and accompanying sha256 file, making the operation distinct from sibling tools like exec or file_write.
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?
It explicitly says to use this before editing via exec, giving a clear triggering context and naming the relevant sibling tool. It does not describe when not to use it or mention alternative backup approaches, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.