移动整个文件夹 (类似 mv /工作/项目A /归档/)。
会递归更新所有后代的逻辑路径。OSS 字节不动。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_path | Yes | 要移动的文件夹完整路径, 如 '/工作/项目A' | |
| target_parent_path | Yes | 新父文件夹路径。'/' 即移到根目录。若也想改名, 用 rename_folder 工具 (不在此工具中合并). | |
| auto_create_folders | No | 目标父路径不存在时是否 mkdir -p |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "move_folderOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: recursive logical path updates for all descendants and that OSS bytes remain unchanged. This goes beyond a bare 'move' statement and provides meaningful insight into the tool's side effects, though it omits details about permissions, atomicity, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two lines, starting with a verb and clear object, and includes a compact code example. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy; the recursive path detail and OSS byte note are valuable and efficiently phrased.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity without annotations or output schema, the description covers the core semantic (logical move) and a key side-effect (recursive path updates), which is sufficient for invocation. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but this is not critical for a move operation with well-documented parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a thorough description, including the root path convention and the rename alternative. The main description adds a concrete example but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves an entire folder, using a concrete shell analogy (`mv /工作/项目A /归档/`). It distinctly targets folder-level operations, differentiating from file moves and rename operations by naming the latter explicitly in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The schema description for target_parent_path explicitly directs users to use rename_folder when a rename is also needed, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use move_file instead of this tool, though the operation's scope is implied by the folder-specific language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Some potential confusion exists between upload_file (a convenience wrapper) and the upload_init/chunk/complete sequence, but descriptions help clarify. The inclusion of scrape_url feels out of place but is also distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_folder, delete_file, download_file). However, 'file_read' breaks the pattern (should be read_file), and 'get_file_info' uses get_ while others use list_. Overall minor inconsistency.
With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable for a file management server that includes upload, download, sharing, and folder operations. A few tools (like scrape_url) seem tangential, but overall the scope justifies the count.
The tool surface covers most core file and folder operations (create, read, update/move, delete, list, search, upload, download, share, zip). Notable gaps include no rename_file tool and no ability to update file metadata. Still, the set is fairly complete for basic file management.