Skip to main content
Glama

workspace_move

Move or rename files and folders within a project workspace using relative source and destination paths, helping agents reorganize project assets without disrupting workflows.

Instructions

Move or rename a file or folder.

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": "workspace_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesPath relative to the workspace root.
fromYesPath relative to the workspace root.
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.3.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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, yet it says nothing about whether moving onto an existing path overwrites it, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how a cross-project move behaves. For a likely destructive mutation, these are meaningful gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage and behavioral detail rather than a sign of completeness.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented 'project' parameter, and no explanation of overwrite or failure behavior is under-described. An agent could invoke it but cannot predict the consequences of a collision at the destination.

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?

The schema documents 'from' and 'to' as paths relative to the workspace root, but the 'project' parameter has no description at all and this description does not compensate for that 33% coverage gap. The description adds no information beyond the schema's own wording.

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 names specific verbs ('move or rename') and a specific resource ('a file or folder'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like workspace_write or workspace_create_folder, so an agent must infer that this is the relocation operation.

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 workspace_write, workspace_create_folder, or workspace_delete, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the destination must not already exist. The agent gets no routing help beyond the verb itself.

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