Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apple-productivity-mcp

apple-productivity-mcp

by gambadio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

apple_files_copy

Copy a regular file to a destination within permitted roots without overwriting existing files, preventing accidental data loss.

Instructions

Copy one regular file within allowed roots. Never overwrites a destination.

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>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "apple_files_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes
destinationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it never overwrites a destination, and copying is constrained to allowed roots. That is meaningful context beyond the annotation set, though it omits what happens on collision (error vs skip).

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the key constraint (no overwrite) second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, but with two fully undocumented parameters and no failure semantics, the definition leaves real gaps for a file-mutation tool operating in a sandboxed root set.

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 coverage is 0% and neither 'source' nor 'destination' is described anywhere. The description does not state path format, whether paths are absolute or relative, or whether the destination is a file path versus a directory, leaving both parameters underspecified.

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 (copy) and resource (one regular file) with a scope qualifier ('within allowed roots'), which separates it from siblings like apple_files_write_text or apple_files_trash. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose copy over other file operations, no prerequisites, and no mention of failure behavior when the destination exists (despite stating it never overwrites). An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools