Skip to main content
Glama

BorealHost

by ai.borealhost

create_ftp_account

Create an SFTP account on a site.

The account is chrooted to /var/www and lands in home_dir. Password must be at least 8 characters. Username must be lowercase alphanumeric.

Requires: API key with write scope.

Args: slug: Site identifier username: SFTP username (lowercase, max 32 chars) password: Password (min 8 chars) home_dir: Landing directory inside /var/www. Leave empty to land at /var/www itself, which lists every site directory.

Returns: {"success": true, "username": "sftpuser", "home_dir": "/wordpress", "protocol": "sftp"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
home_dirNo
passwordYes
usernameYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so excellently. It discloses the chroot isolation to /var/www, the landing directory behavior (including the empty home_dir case), password length enforcement, and username format restrictions. It also includes the return payload structure, giving a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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: a one-line purpose, then constraints, requirements, args, and returns. Every sentence contributes information; none is wasted. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides critical usage details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (creation with security implications) and the absence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the operation, required permissions, parameter constraints, behavioral nuances (chroot, empty home_dir), and the exact return format. No significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description compensates thoroughly with an Args section. Each parameter (slug, username, password, home_dir) gets a semantic explanation, including constraints (lowercase, max 32 chars, min 8 chars) and the meaning of empty home_dir. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create an SFTP account on a site.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings like list_ftp_accounts and remove_ftp_account by focusing on the creation action. The scope (site-specific, chrooted) further clarifies its unique role.

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?

Provides clear context for use: requires a write-scoped API key, defines username/password constraints, and explains home_dir semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_ftp_accounts, but the context is strong enough to infer when this tool is appropriate. No exclusions are stated, but the requirements implicitly guide usage.

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

All BorealHost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.

Resources