Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Free Codin Agent

Free Codin Agent

by office233
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

move_path

Destructive

Relocate or rename files and directories within a project, with optional overwrite and partial undo support.

Instructions

Move or rename a file or directory.

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_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes
overwriteNo
destinationYes
allowPartialUndoNoProceed even if the change is too large to snapshot completely (undo would be partial)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only the rename clarification and says nothing about overwriting an existing destination, snapshot/undo limits, or permissions for a destructive filesystem operation.

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?

A single six-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and free of filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 destructive 4-parameter filesystem mutation with no output schema and only 25% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits overwrite behavior, undo semantics, and the meaning of the undocumented parameters, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 description coverage is only 25% (just allowPartialUndo is documented), yet the description says nothing about source, destination, or overwrite semantics. It does not compensate at all for the undocumented parameters, leaving overwrite behavior and undo implications opaque.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Move or rename a file or directory' tells the agent exactly what operation it performs, and the 'or rename' clause usefully notes that a move doubles as a rename. However, it offers no differentiation from near siblings like copy_path or delete_path.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the copy_path/delete_path alternatives that accomplish related outcomes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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