nutstore-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

download_dir

Recursively download a full directory from Nutstore cloud to a local path, preserving its structure and creating the destination folder if it doesn't exist.

Instructions

从坚果云递归下载整个目录到本机本地路径（保留目录结构）。 local_dir 为本机目标目录路径，不存在时自动创建。

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": {
      "remote_dir": "<remote_dir>",
      "local_dir": "<local_dir>"
    },
    "name": "download_dir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`local_dir`	Yes
`remote_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive behavior, directory structure preservation, and auto-creation of local_dir. However, it omits important traits like overwrite behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining a parameter. No unnecessary words, making it easy to quickly understand.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: remote source, local destination, recursive scope, and directory creation behavior. It doesn't address edge cases like existing files, but the tool's simplicity means this is not a major gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains local_dir's meaning and auto-creation, while remote_dir is inferable from the tool's purpose. This provides meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 recursively downloads an entire directory from Nutstore to a local path, preserving directory structure. This specifies the action, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from file-level downloads and uploads.

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 implies usage by stating it's for whole-directory recursive downloads, with local_dir auto-created. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide appropriate use.

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