Copy files between a host and a virtual machine using SCP, with options for recursive transfer, checksum verification, and preserving attributes.
Copie des fichiers entre l'hôte et une VM via SCP ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| vm_name | Yes | ||
| checksum | No | ||
| preserve | No | ||
| direction | No | to_vm | |
| recursive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the warning is redundant. The description adds the SCP transport detail, which is useful but does not elaborate on what the destructive potential entails (e.g., overwriting files, affecting VM state). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and appends a prominent warning. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content it delivers, though it omits important parameter details that could be structured without becoming verbose.
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 tool with 7 parameters, including direction, recursive, checksum, and preserve, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to set parameters, what 'potentially destructive' means, or any prerequisites like SSH access or VM state. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without substantial inference.
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 0%, and the description mentions none of the 7 parameters. It fails to explain direction, recursive, checksum, preserve, or how source/dest relate to the VM. The agent gets no semantic meaning beyond raw parameter names, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('copy') and resource ('files between the host and a VM via SCP'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_exec (commands), vm_snapshot, and backup tools. The verb and resource are precise, and the warning does not obscure the core purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as the VM needing to be running, nor does it name any alternative tools like vm_exec or backup tools. The destructive warning is not usage guidance, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.