Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
File Organizer MCP

File Organizer MCP

by kridaydave
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Organize Documents by Content

file_organizer_organize_by_content
Destructive

Group files by content analysis—topic folders for documents, project folders across types. Preview changes using dry_run before moving files.

Instructions

Organize files based on content analysis. strategy='topic' groups documents (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD, RTF, ODT) into topic-based folders. strategy='project' groups files across all types (documents, code, images) into detected project folders using shared name tokens, content terms, and identifiers. Use dry_run=true to preview changes.

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_dir": "<source_dir>",
      "target_dir": "<target_dir>"
    },
    "name": "file_organizer_organize_by_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview changes without moving files
strategyNo'topic' groups documents by detected topic; 'project' groups files across types into detected project folderstopic
recursiveNoScan subdirectories recursively
source_dirYesFull path to the directory containing document files
target_dirYesFull path to the directory where organized documents will be placed
response_formatNomarkdown
create_shortcutsNoCreate shortcuts/symlinks for multi-topic documents

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning dry_run to preview changes, implying the actual run moves/reorganizes files. However, it does not explicitly state that files will be moved or that the operation can be destructive, despite destructiveHint=true. The dry_run tip indirectly addresses safety, but it lacks explicit disclosure of the side effects (e.g., permanent directory restructuring).

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence states the purpose, followed by two sentences explaining strategies and a clear tip about dry_run. It front-loads the main action and uses no filler, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 strategies, destructive), the description covers the core behavior and provides a safety tip (dry_run). It does not explain all parameters (e.g., recursive, create_shortcuts, response_format), but those are documented in the schema. It lacks explicit mention of return values or undo options, but no output schema exists. The main gap is not explicitly stating the destructive nature beyond the annotation, but the dry_run tip mitigates this. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds significant value for the strategy parameter by detailing file types for topic (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD, RTF, ODT) and the heuristic for project (shared name tokens, content terms, identifiers). This goes beyond the schema's brief enum description, adding meaningful usage semantics.

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 clearly states the tool organizes files based on content analysis, and distinguishes between two strategies (topic and project) with specific file types and grouping logic. This differentiates it from sibling tools like organize_by_type or organize_photos by emphasizing content-based grouping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context: strategy='topic' for documents, strategy='project' for mixed file types, and a direct tip to use dry_run=true for previewing changes. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool over other organizers, the content-based focus and strategy options give sufficient guidance. No exclusions are stated, but the core purpose is clear.

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