Compress selected files or directories into an archive at a destination, letting you set the archive name, format, password, and replace behavior.
Compress files/directories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| files | Yes | ||
| secret | No | ||
| replace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether an existing archive is overwritten (relevant to the 'replace' parameter), what 'secret' does (encryption/password?), where the archive is written, or whether the operation is blocking or async. For a 6-parameter mutation tool this is a complete gap.
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 three-word description is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no wasted text because there is essentially no text. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare action, and critical constraints are omitted.
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 six parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent has no way to know required formats for 'type', the meaning of 'dst' vs 'name', or the behavior of 'secret' and 'replace'.
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% for all 6 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them: 'dst', 'name', 'type', 'files', 'secret', and 'replace' are all left undefined. With four required parameters including an undocumented 'type' and 'dst', an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call.
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 names a specific verb ('Compress') and resource ('files/directories'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it provides no differentiation from the sibling decompress_file and no hint of what the compressed output is (archive format, destination, naming), even though three required parameters govern exactly that.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as decompress_file for the reverse direction. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.