download_fileDownload any file or directory from your Filen cloud drive directly to a specified local path on the server machine.
Download a file (or directory) from the Filen cloud to a local destination path on the machine running this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute cloud path of the file/directory to download | |
| destination | Yes | Absolute local destination path, e.g. 'C:\Users\me\Downloads\file.pdf' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which do not communicate that this tool writes bytes onto the local filesystem of the server host. The description explicitly discloses that side effect and where it lands, which is real value beyond the annotations. It stops short of covering overwrite behavior for existing destinations or how recursive directory downloads behave.
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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(or directory)' is a useful scope note rather than noise.
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?
Adequate for a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, but an agent still cannot tell what happens if the destination exists, whether the call blocks on large files, or what a successful response looks like (no output schema). One more sentence on overwrite/recursive semantics would close the gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in detail, including the Windows-style absolute path example. The description adds only the cloud-vs-local framing, which the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Download') plus resource ('a file (or directory)') plus source ('Filen cloud') and target ('local destination path'). It is clearly distinguishable from upload_file and read_file by the direction of transfer, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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: an agent can infer this is the way to pull content to local disk, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over read_file (in-memory read) or how directory downloads relate to list_directory. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.