Copy files or directories from a remote SSH or WinRM host to the MCP server. Set recursive to true to download an entire directory.
Copy a remote file or directory to the MCP server. Set recursive=true for directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| connection | No | ||
| local_path | Yes | ||
| remote_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the inbound data-flow direction and the directory/recursive requirement, which annotations do not express, but it stays silent on overwrite semantics for an existing local_path — the most important unknown for a destructive transfer.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the destination. Nothing is redundant, though the size is arguably too small for a five-parameter tool rather than overly 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool has five parameters with zero schema coverage, a destructive transfer, and an open-world remote target. The description never addresses authentication/profile selection, connection overrides, or what happens to pre-existing local files.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only 'recursive' for directories and implicitly the two paths; 'profile' and 'connection' get no explanation at all, leaving the agent to guess how the remote endpoint is selected.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Copy a remote file or directory') and pins the destination as 'the MCP server', which separates it in direction from the sibling remote_upload. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the direction of transfer is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a profile or connection must presumably be supplied), and no reference to the obvious counterpart remote_upload. The only conditional sentence is about a parameter, not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.