Claude File Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a ZIP archive

zip_path

Create ZIP archives from files and folders, preserving each source's top-level name, including subfolders recursively, storing UTF-8 names correctly, and skipping symbolic links.

Instructions

Packs files and folders into a ZIP archive. Each source keeps its own name at the top level of the archive; subfolders are included recursively. Symbolic links are skipped. UTF-8 file names are stored correctly. Set overwrite=true to replace an existing archive.

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": {
      "sources": "<sources>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "zip_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sources`	Yes	Files and folders to include, e.g. ["src", "README.md"]
`overwrite`	No	Replace the archive if it already exists
`destination`	Yes	Archive path, e.g. `backup.zip`

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses top-level naming per source, recursive subfolder inclusion, that symbolic links are skipped, that UTF-8 names are preserved, and that overwrite=true replaces an existing archive. Gaps remain on the failure behavior when the archive already exists without overwrite and on permissions or partial-archive handling, which matter for a mutation of this kind.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then scoped semantics, with no repetition of the schema or the title. Each sentence contributes a distinct behavioral fact (recursion, symlinks, encoding, overwrite), so the length is well justified.

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?

For a three-parameter archive writer with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers structure, recursion, encoding, link handling, and overwrite semantics, which is close to what an agent needs. It is not fully complete because it never states the outcome of a name collision without overwrite=true, nor what is returned on success.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by adding meaning beyond the schema for two parameters, describing how sources are laid out (own name at top level, recursion, symlink skipping) and what overwrite=true actually does. The destination parameter gains nothing beyond the schema's example, keeping this from a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Packs files and folders into a ZIP archive," which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as copy_path, move_path, or unzip_path, which extract an archive. It does not explicitly name or rule out a sibling, so it sits just short of a top score.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, and the note "Set overwrite=true to replace an existing archive" gives some conditional guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like copy_path when no compression is needed, and no statement about what happens when the destination exists and overwrite is omitted.

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