Parallels Pro MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Share a host directory with Parallels VM

vm_share_folder

Destructive

Mount a host directory into a Parallels virtual machine as a shared folder, enabling file access between host and guest with optional read-only or read-write mode.

Instructions

Mount a host directory into the guest as a Parallels Shared Folder.

Args: vm: The VM name or UUID. name: Name of the share (e.g. "project_workspace"). host_path: Host directory to mount. mode: Sharing mode: "ro" (read-only) or "rw" (read-write). Default is "rw". description: Optional notes describing the shared folder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`vm`	Yes
`mode`	No	rw
`name`	Yes
`host_path`	Yes
`description`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`uuid`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`host_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or reversibility. It merely restates the action, providing minimal value beyond what annotations already convey.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded purpose statement followed by a structured Args block. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All parameters and defaults are covered, and the output schema presumably defines return values. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., host path existence) or error conditions, but for a straightforward share operation the information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description includes an Args block that explains every parameter (vm, name, host_path, mode, description) with defaults, which the schema completely lacks (schema coverage 0%). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and clarifies the mode options and default.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb 'Mount' with a specific resource 'host directory' and destination 'Parallels Shared Folder'. This distinctly separates it from siblings like vm_copy_to_guest (copying files) and vm_unshare_folder (removing shares).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the action but provides no exclusions or comparisons. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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