Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nemeton MCP

Nemeton MCP

by juergenkoller-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

file_upload

Upload files from the host machine to a virtual machine by specifying the local file path and the destination path in the VM.

Instructions

Upload a file from the host into a VM.

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": {
      "vm": "<vm>",
      "localPath": "<localPath>",
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>"
    },
    "name": "file_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vmYesVM name or identifier
localPathYes
remotePathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention critical traits like overwrite behavior, file size limits, required permissions, or error handling. The agent has no insight into side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence, but it is too brief given the lack of other explanatory content. It earns its place but should include more context to be effective.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, error states, and behavioral guarantees. Agents lack key information for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaningful parameter explanation beyond the property names. For example, it does not clarify that localPath is on the host and remotePath on the VM, or whether paths have restrictions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Upload') and clearly identifies the resource ('a file from the host into a VM'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_download (reverse direction) or clone_vm (different resource).

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 such as console_execute or ssh_execute for file transfer, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or exclusions.

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