Skip to main content
Glama
eva-wanxin-git

Windows Automation MCP Server

copy_file

Copy files between locations on Windows systems to automate file management tasks within the Windows Automation MCP Server environment.

Instructions

复制文件

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes源文件路径
destinationYes目标文件路径

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that performs the file copy operation using fs.copyFile from Node.js fs/promises module. It handles errors and returns a structured success or error response.
    async copyFile(source, destination) {
      try {
        await fs.copyFile(source, destination);
        return { success: true, source, destination, message: '复制成功' };
      } catch (error) {
        return { success: false, error: error.message };
      }
    }
  • The tool definition including name, description, and input schema for validating arguments (source and destination file paths).
    {
      name: 'copy_file',
      description: '复制文件',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          source: { type: 'string', description: '源文件路径' },
          destination: { type: 'string', description: '目标文件路径' },
        },
        required: ['source', 'destination'],
      },
    },
  • Registration in the executeTool switch statement, dispatching copy_file calls to the copyFile handler method.
    case 'copy_file':
      return await this.copyFile(args.source, args.destination);
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '复制文件' only states the action without any details on behavior: it does not specify if the copy overwrites existing files, preserves metadata, handles errors, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about important operational traits.

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?

The description is extremely concise at just two characters ('复制文件'), which translates to 'copy file'. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. While brevity can indicate under-specification, in terms of structure and economy of language, every character serves the purpose of stating the tool's function without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a file mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), usage guidelines, or output expectations. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description does not provide enough information for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, with both parameters ('source' and 'destination') clearly documented in the schema as file paths. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path formats, restrictions). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '复制文件' (copy file) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'copy_file' in Chinese. It does not specify what kind of file copying operation this performs (e.g., local file system, network, with overwrite behavior) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'move_file'. While the verb 'copy' is clear, the description lacks specificity about the resource scope or operational context.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot copy directories based on sibling 'create_directory'), or comparisons to related tools like 'move_file' or 'write_file'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eva-wanxin-git/windows-automation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server