Manage filesystem operations in one tool: stat, mkdir, move, copy, or delete; destination required for move/copy.
Perform filesystem management in one tool: stat, mkdir, move, copy or delete. destination is required for move/copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| force | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| destination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly communicated by structure. The description adds nothing beyond the destination rule: it never says delete is irreversible or destructive, what force does on delete/move, or that mkdir with recursive creates parents. For a five-mode mutation tool this is thin.
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?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the operation list and ending with the one parameter constraint that matters. No padding, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere.
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?
No output schema, no annotation elaboration, and 0% schema coverage mean the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter detail — yet it covers only one constraint on one of five parameters for a multi-mode destructive tool.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies that destination applies to move/copy, leaving force, recursive, and path semantics completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Names a specific resource (filesystem) and enumerates the five operations (stat, mkdir, move, copy, delete), which lets an agent distinguish it from the read/write/list/patch siblings that cover other filesystem surface. It is clear but does not explicitly say how it differs from fs_write, fs_read, or fs_list.
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 supplies one conditional rule — destination is required for move/copy — which is genuine usage guidance for parameter selection. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over fs_write, fs_read, fs_list, or fs_patch, nor on prerequisites or the fact that it handles multiple unrelated operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.