High-Performance File System MCP Server

move_file

Move or rename files and directories to a specified path, with an option to overwrite existing destinations.

Instructions

Move or rename a file or directory.

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": "move_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes	Source file/folder path
`overwrite`	No	Overwrite destination if exists (default: false)
`destination`	Yes	Destination file/folder path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no details about overwrite behavior (though the schema has an 'overwrite' parameter with default false), failure conditions, side effects, or any contextual behavior. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word is useful with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of return values, error handling, or overwrite semantics. It does not go beyond a basic statement of purpose, leaving some context gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (source, destination, overwrite) having a description. The tool description itself adds no additional explanation of parameter meanings or constraints, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Move or rename') and the resource ('file or directory'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, write_file, and delete_file. The verb is specific and the scope is explicit.

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 purpose statement implies usage (when you want to move/rename a file or directory), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it relates to siblings, so only implied usage is present.

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

Deploy Server