mcp-pcloud-crunchtools

Pcloud Rename File

pcloud_rename_file

Provide the current path and target path to rename or move a file within pCloud.

Instructions

Rename or move a file in pCloud.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "to_path": "<to_path>"
    },
    "name": "pcloud_rename_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`to_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.0Sep 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedOutput schema / description
```
Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
First observedv2.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only names the operation. It does not disclose what happens when the destination exists, whether this is an in-place rename or a copy+delete, or any side effects on the original path.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a concise single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter/behavior context.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits path semantics, overwrite behavior, and any usage conditions; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not define the two parameters. 'path' and 'to_path' imply a source and destination, but the description never maps them explicitly or states whether to_path is a full path or a new file name.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Rename or move') and a specific resource ('a file in pCloud'), which distinguishes it from the sibling pcloud_rename_folder. It does not explicitly contrast with copy or delete operations, but the action and file resource are unambiguous enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as pcloud_copy_file or pcloud_rename_folder. No conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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

Deploy Server