Copies files and folders across O2, Drive, OneDrive, and Google Photos; optional move mode verifies SHA-256 before removing the source.
Inicia una copia entre nubes. move=True verifica SHA-256 antes de retirar un archivo del origen. Carpetas y Google Fotos admiten copia.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| move | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| source_volume | Yes | ||
| destination_volume | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: with move=True, it verifies SHA-256 before removing the source file. This adds important context about data integrity and the destructive nature of move operations. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's integrity check detail complements that well. It doesn't cover error handling or rate limits, but it's solid.
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, front-loaded sentence that covers the main action and a key caveat. It's efficient and earns its place, though the language mismatch with siblings and tool name slightly reduces clarity.
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?
Given no output schema and 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description is minimal. It explains the move flag and mentions folder/Google Photos support, but leaves the four required path/volume parameters undocumented and doesn't detail what happens on success/failure (e.g., output format, job ID, permissions). The integrity check note helps, but the tool remains underspecified for an agent to invoke confidently.
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%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types, no semantics. The description explains the move parameter's behavior (SHA-256 check, removal from source), which is valuable. However, it does not clarify the four required parameters: source, destination, source_volume, destination_volume. The meaning of 'volume' and how to specify paths is left ambiguous, so the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 'Inicia una copia entre nubes' states a clear verb (copy) and scope (between clouds). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like cloud_move by noting that move=True removes the file from the source. However, the description is in Spanish while the tool name and most of the metadata are English, which may cause confusion for English-speaking agents.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use cloud_copy versus cloud_move or other transfer tools. The note that move=True removes the source provides a hint, but there is no statement of alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.