Skip to main content
Glama
eva-wanxin-git

Windows Automation MCP Server

move_file

Move or rename files on Windows systems by specifying source and destination paths to organize or relocate files.

Instructions

移动或重命名文件

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the move_file tool logic using Node.js fs.rename to move or rename the file from source to destination, returning success status and message or error.
    async moveFile(source, destination) {
      try {
        await fs.rename(source, destination);
        return { success: true, source, destination, message: '移动成功' };
      } catch (error) {
        return { success: false, error: error.message };
      }
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema specifying required 'source' and 'destination' string parameters for validation.
    {
      name: 'move_file',
      description: '移动或重命名文件',
      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'],
      },
    },
  • Registers and dispatches the 'move_file' tool call to the moveFile handler method within the executeTool switch statement.
    case 'move_file':
      return await this.moveFile(args.source, args.destination);
  • Registers 'move_file' in the canHandle method's tool list for routing tool calls to this module.
    const tools = ['read_file', 'write_file', 'list_directory', 'create_directory', 
                   'delete_file', 'copy_file', 'move_file', 'search_files'];
    return tools.includes(toolName);
Behavior2/5

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. It states the action ('move or rename') but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it overwrites existing files at the destination, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if source doesn't exist), or affects file metadata. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('移动或重命名文件')—a single phrase that front-loads the core action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by directly stating the purpose.

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 mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), usage context, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't add enough value to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps for 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 clear parameter descriptions ('源文件路径' for source path, '目标文件路径' for destination path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as path format examples or constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 '移动或重命名文件' (move or rename a file) clearly states the verb ('move/rename') and resource ('file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_file' (which copies) and 'delete_file' (which removes), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more detailed about scope (e.g., across directories vs. same location).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'move_file' over 'copy_file' (for duplication) or 'rename_file' (if a sibling exists), nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence or permissions. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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