SapperMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Copy Path

copy_path

Copies a file or directory tree from a source path to a destination path, with optional overwrite and sudo support for authorized system file operations.

Instructions

Copy a file or directory tree.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "copy_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sudo`	No
`source`	Yes
`overwrite`	No
`destination`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what happens when the destination already exists, what overwrite does, or when sudo escalation is needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves the risky semantics entirely implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is undersized for a four-parameter filesystem mutation; concision here comes at the cost of missing detail rather than through efficient editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 explained, but the definition omits any discussion of overwrite semantics, privilege escalation, and recursive-copy behavior. Given the complexity of a copy operation with an overwrite flag, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description only loosely implies a source and destination pair. The 'overwrite' and 'sudo' flags, both of which materially change behavior, receive no explanation anywhere in the definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Copy') and a clear resource ('a file or directory tree'), which also tells the agent that directory trees are handled recursively. It is distinguishable from siblings like move_path or delete_path by implication, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of move_path, get_path_info, or create_directory, and no preconditions such as whether the destination parent must exist. The agent must infer all usage context from the verb alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server