nextcloud_copy_itemCopy a file or folder within Nextcloud from a source path to a destination path, with optional overwrite. Use it to duplicate or relocate items without moving the original.
Alias for copy_resource to support MCP server action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest_path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| source_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing: it does not explain what happens when dest_path already exists, what overwrite does, or whether a failed copy of a directory is partial. For a mutation tool with an undocumented overwrite flag, that is a real gap.
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?
It is one short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the single sentence is an internal implementation note ('Alias ... to support MCP server action') that conveys no information useful to a caller. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy.
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?
Three parameters, two required, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations beyond safety hints. The description should carry the load of explaining paths, overwrite semantics, and return behavior, and it does none of it.
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% and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. The critical semantics of overwrite (default false, presumably failing or skipping on existing destination) and the file-vs-directory behavior of source_path/dest_path are left completely unexplained.
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 only restates that it is an alias for copy_resource, a sibling tool it never explains; the actual purpose (copying a file/folder from source_path to dest_path) is inferable only from the tool name and parameter names. It does not distinguish this from nextcloud_move_item, nextcloud_copy_resource, or nextcloud_create_folder in any substantive way.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. Saying it is an 'alias ... to support MCP server action' gives the agent no condition for choosing this over nextcloud_copy_resource, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.