Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

move_file

Requests local Owner GUI review to move one exact file to an absent destination within configured Windows roots, without overwrite, directory moves, job spawning, or auto-retry of unknown results.

Instructions

DEV_ONLY Windows: request local Owner GUI review of one exact file move in existing roots. No overwrite, directory move or job spawn. Cooperative checks are not protected CAS. UNKNOWN requires manual reconciliation; never auto-retry or assume rollback.

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": "move_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	Absolute existing ordinary single-link file in configured Owner roots; directories and protected names are denied.
`destination`	Yes	Absolute absent destination in configured Owner roots; existing non-linked parent required, never overwrite.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the no-overwrite and no-directory-move constraints, states no job is spawned, warns that cooperative checks are not protected CAS, and specifies that an UNKNOWN result requires manual reconciliation with no auto-retry or assumed rollback. What is missing is the approval lifecycle (does the call block, time out, or return a pending status?).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the environment gate and the core action, with zero filler. The telegraphic style and unexplained jargon ("protected CAS", "Cooperative checks") cost it a point against maximum clarity, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope restrictions, destructive-operation safeguards, and the failure-mode protocol for an ambiguous result. The remaining gap is the review/approval workflow itself — what the caller should expect between request and execution — which is material for a tool whose name implies a human-in-the-loop step.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented with root, single-link, absent-destination, and parent-existence constraints. The description adds only the no-overwrite and no-directory-move framing, which the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Request local Owner GUI review of one exact file move" names a specific verb and resource, but leaves ambiguous whether the tool actually performs the move or only queues an approval request. The qualifiers (existing roots, no overwrite, no directory move) narrow scope usefully, but an agent cannot tell from the text whether the file will have moved when the call returns.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"DEV_ONLY Windows" is an explicit precondition, and "one exact file move in existing roots" implies the single-file case. However, no alternative is named for the excluded cases — an agent wanting to move a directory, overwrite a file, or perform a bulk move is given no routing to run_command or any sibling.

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