ryns-code-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Move File

move_file

Move or rename files and directories inside a workspace by specifying source and destination paths, so an AI assistant can reorganize project files without leaving the workspace.

Instructions

Move or rename a file/directory inside the workspace.

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
`destination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the workspace scope boundary. It says nothing about whether an existing destination is overwritten, whether missing parent directories are created, whether the operation is atomic or reversible, or what happens if source and destination are the same.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, two undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin. Critical facts an agent needs before calling it — overwrite behavior, path semantics, and error conditions — are all absent.

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 0% for both required parameters, so source and destination are documented nowhere. The description's 'move or rename' implies a source-to-destination mapping but does not clarify path format (relative vs. absolute), whether destination may be a directory or must be a full path, or what happens with trailing slashes.

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?

The description names a specific verb pair (move or rename) and a specific resource (file/directory), with a scope qualifier ('inside the workspace'). An agent can distinguish it from write_file, edit_file, or delete_file without inspecting the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 alternatives (e.g., copy vs. move, or using write_file to create a copy), and no preconditions such as required permissions or existence of the source. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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