Copy files, directories, or glob patterns from the host to a VMware guest and verify with SHA-256.
Copy a file, directory or glob from the host into the guest and verify it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | Yes | VM name as registered in vms.yaml | |
| local | Yes | Host file, directory or glob (absolute path) | |
| remote | Yes | Guest path; a directory when local is several files | |
| verify | No | Compare SHA-256 after the copy |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the verification step ('verify it' and the 'verify' parameter description 'Compare SHA-256 after the copy'), which is a positive behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or what happens on failure.
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 one sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and the verification aspect. No filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and immediately understandable.
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?
For a copy tool with 4 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the operation and the verify flag, but lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., glob expansion, directory behavior, error handling) and any prerequisite conditions (e.g., VM must be powered on) that an agent would need to know for successful invocation. The sibling tools list suggests a VM management context, but the description doesn't leverage that to add operational context.
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 documents each parameter (vm, local, remote, verify) adequately. The description adds slight nuance ('remote' as directory when local is several files) and the verify parameter's purpose is echoed in the description, but it doesn't add significant detail beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action ('Copy') and the resources involved ('file, directory or glob from the host into the guest') with a verification step. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'file_pull' which copies in the opposite direction, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 description implies usage context: transferring files from host to guest. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over file_pull or other tools, but the directionality makes it obvious. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., guest running) or constraints like needing the VM to be active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.