Copy a file from the host into a QEMU guest via qemu-ga. Use local and guest paths to place test apps or files inside the VM.
Copy a file from the host into the guest (via qemu-ga). Guest paths are Windows-style for Windows guests (e.g. C:\uos-tests\app.exe). Size cap: ~2GB practical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| guest_path | Yes | ||
| local_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits: the transport mechanism (qemu-ga), Windows-style guest path convention, and a ~2GB practical size cap. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing guest file, required permissions/agent availability, or failure modes.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the path convention and size cap as supporting detail. Nothing is padded, though the size-cap note could be tighter.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers mechanism, path convention and a size limit, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage it omits overwrite semantics, permission/agent requirements, and error behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the guest_path format (Windows-style, with an example) and implies local_path is the host-side source, but the required 'name' parameter is never explained at all, leaving a full third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb (copy), resource (a file), and direction (host into guest), which is exactly what separates it from the sibling vm_get_file. The qemu-ga mechanism further pins down what is happening. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the host-to-guest direction tells the agent to use this when pushing files in, but no alternatives (vm_get_file, vm_mount_iso, init_workspace) are named and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. It gives path-format guidance but not 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.