Compress files or directories into .zip, .tar, or .tar.gz archives by specifying a source path and archive name.
Compress files or a directory into a .zip, .tar, or .tar.gz archive
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_path | Yes | Directory or file to compress | |
| archive_name | Yes | Name of the output archive (e.g. backup.zip) | |
| archive_type | No | Compression format | zip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden. It does not say where the archive is written, whether an existing archive with the same name is overwritten, how large inputs are handled, or what the result looks like — all material for an operation that creates a file on disk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the output artifact is stated before the format options. It is efficient, though the enumerated extensions repeat information the enum already carries without resolving the gzip/.tar.gz ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum state where the resulting archive is placed and how existing files are treated. Neither is covered, leaving the agent without the information needed to predict the tool's effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters and the enum are already documented; baseline is therefore 3. The description does add the notion that source_path may be a directory or file, consistent with the schema, but it actually omits the 'bzip2' enum value, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Compress') plus resource ('files or a directory') and output artifact ('archive'), which cleanly separates it from the inverse sibling extract_archive. The format list is slightly out of sync with the schema enum (bzip2 is omitted, and '.tar.gz' is named where the enum says 'gzip'), so it is clear but not perfectly precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives such as create_full_backup, create_homedir_backup, or the inverse extract_archive. No prerequisites, no note about whether the source path must exist on the server, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.