qidi-mcp

copy_file

Copy files or directories on a QIDI printer by specifying source and destination paths; confirm=true must be set before execution.

Instructions

Copy a file/directory on the printer. Both paths include the root, e.g. source='gcodes/a.gcode', dest='gcodes/backup/a.gcode'. Requires confirm=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "dest": "<dest>"
    },
    "name": "copy_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dest`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`confirm_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds the confirm gate. However, it omits the critical behaviors for a copy: whether an existing destination is overwritten, whether directories are copied recursively, and what confirm_token does. The confirm requirement is slightly in tension with the schema, where confirm is optional with default false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: purpose, path format with example, and the confirm requirement. Front-loaded, no filler, and the example earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented confirm_token and the undefined overwrite/recursion semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies source/dest format with a concrete path example and mentions confirm, but leaves confirm_token entirely unexplained despite it being an auth-style parameter an agent must understand.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a file/directory on the printer') and the scope (on the printer filesystem, root-relative paths). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from move_file or download_file, but 'copy' as the verb does most of that work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to copy versus move, download, or create_directory, nor what happens if the destination already exists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server