Proton Suite Agent

Copy files on Proton Drive

proton_drive_copy

Copy remote files or folders from one Proton Drive path to another using the proton-drive CLI by specifying source and destination paths.

Instructions

Copies a remote path using the proton-drive CLI.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "proton_drive_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Destination remote path
`from`	Yes	Source remote path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond mentioning the CLI, leaving open the important case of what happens when the destination already exists (overwrite, error, or duplicate) for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

A single short sentence front-loads the verb, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the trailing 'using the proton-drive CLI' clause earns little for an agent choosing between tools.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation operation, the description should cover overwrite behavior, whether directories are copied recursively, and error conditions. None of these are present, so the definition is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly in edge cases.

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 two clearly documented parameters (source and destination remote paths). The description adds no format, path-syntax, or directory-vs-file semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb (copies) and a resource (remote path), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'remote path' is vague about whether files, folders, or entire trees are copied, and there is no differentiation from close siblings like proton_drive_move or proton_drive_upload beyond the verb itself.

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 versus proton_drive_move, proton_drive_upload, or proton_drive_download. The agent must infer that copy means duplicating a source to a new destination while leaving the source intact.

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

Deploy Server