Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPDactyl

MCPDactyl

by MrMirhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Copy a file

files_copy

Copy a file or directory to create a duplicate next to the original, useful for backups or before edits.

Instructions

Copy a file or directory. The copy is placed next to the original.

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": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "files_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panelNoName of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
serverYes
baseUrlNoInline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
locationYesAbsolute path of the file to copy.
clientKeyNoInline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
applicationKeyNoInline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the destination rule ('placed next to the original'), but says nothing about the auto-generated copy name, overwrite/conflict behavior, recursive directory handling, or required permissions for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the destination constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is too thin: it leaves copy naming, overwrite semantics, error conditions, and return value entirely unaddressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 83%, so almost every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description only indirectly confirms 'location' is the source path.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a file or directory'), which is clearer than the bare title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like files_rename or files_pull, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use files_copy rather than files_rename, files_pull, or upload/compress alternatives. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'copy'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools