Skip to main content
Glama
roynertr

COBie MCP

by roynertr

organize_document_file

Copies or moves a document file into the COBie folder structure under {docs_root}/{SheetName}/{RowName} and returns the directory and filename for use in add_document.

Instructions

Copy/move a file to the standard COBie document location.

Target path: {docs_root}/{SheetName}/{RowName}/{filename}

Returns the Directory and File values to pass to add_document.
Use this to physically organize documents before adding metadata to Excel.

Args:
    source_file_path: Path to source file
    sheet_name: Target sheet (Component, Type, Space, etc.)
    row_name: Target entity name
    docs_root: Base folder for document organization
    copy: If True, copy file (default). If False, move file.
    filename_override: Optional filename to use instead of original

Returns:
    Dictionary with directory, file, target_path, and success status

Example:
    result = organize_document_file(
        source_file_path="/tmp/AHU-1-manual.pdf",
        sheet_name="Component",
        row_name="AHU-1",
        docs_root="project_docs"
    )
    # Returns: {"directory": "project_docs/Component/AHU-1", "file": "AHU-1-manual.pdf"}
    # Then use in add_document

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
copyNo
row_nameYes
docs_rootYes
sheet_nameYes
source_file_pathYes
filename_overrideNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the copy/move behavior based on the copy flag and notes the default is to copy. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, handling missing source files, or whether it creates directories. Since it covers the core operation but omits edge-case behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, target path, usage note, Args, Returns, and Example. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. The example is concise and directly illustrates the expected output. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no filler content.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's role in the larger workflow (organizing files before adding metadata), the exact target path format, and the return values used by add_document. It provides an example that ties the inputs and outputs together. It does not address error conditions or overwrite behavior, but for a file organization utility in this context, the information is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema has six parameters with no descriptions, but the Args section explicitly explains each one, including the meaning of sheet_name and row_name in the target path, and the function of copy and filename_override. This adds significant semantic value beyond parameter names, providing clear mapping to the path template. The coverage is complete and explanatory, warranting a 4.

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's action: 'Copy/move a file to the standard COBie document location.' It specifies the target path template and clarifies its role in the workflow by returning values for add_document. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document or extract_from_submittal, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use this to physically organize documents before adding metadata to Excel.' It also explains the return values are meant to be passed to add_document, implying the alternative of using add_document directly if organization is unnecessary. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use comparison with other tools, but the context is sufficiently 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