Extract compressed archives (.zip, .tar, .tar.gz, .bz2) into a specified destination directory to unpack files for cPanel hosting tasks.
Extract a compressed archive (.zip, .tar, .tar.gz, .bz2) into a destination directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archive_path | Yes | Path to the archive file (e.g. public_html/app.zip) | |
| destination_dir | Yes | Destination directory to extract into (e.g. public_html/app) |
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 full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about overwrite semantics for existing files in the destination, whether the destination directory is created if missing, permission handling, or any path-traversal safety behavior. For a filesystem-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the operation, the accepted formats, and the target all in place. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core identity is clear. However, with no annotations the description should have covered destructive side effects like overwriting files in the destination, which leaves it only minimally adequate.
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% with only two required string parameters, both already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds nothing about path format, relative-vs-absolute resolution, or whether the destination must be empty, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (extract) and resource (archive) and even enumerates the supported formats (.zip, .tar, .tar.gz, .bz2), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling compress_files or otherwise differentiate itself, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (notably compress_files), no stated preconditions such as the archive existing or the destination directory needing to exist, and no exclusions. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.