Copy a file from a guest VM to the host machine. Specify the VM, remote guest path, and local destination to transfer files directly.
Copy a file from the guest to the host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | Yes | VM name as registered in vms.yaml | |
| local | Yes | Host file, or a directory when it ends with a separator (absolute path) | |
| remote | Yes | Guest file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only states the copy action and does not mention whether an existing local file is overwritten, whether directories are created, or what happens on failure. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating file operation.
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 description is a single clear sentence with no filler. The essential direction and action are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
The purpose and all three required parameters are fully specified, which is adequate for a basic copy invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of behavioral details such as overwrite semantics and error handling leaves a small but real gap.
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 100%, so the schema already defines vm, local, and remote with adequate descriptions. The tool description restates the guest/host mapping that is already present in the parameter descriptions and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Copy', and clearly identifies both source ('guest') and destination ('host'). This directionality distinguishes it from the sibling file_push, which is the reverse operation, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does.
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?
The 'from the guest to the host' phrasing provides clear operational context and implicitly separates this tool from file_push. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.