List all FTP accounts with disk usage to monitor storage and manage access.
List all FTP accounts with disk usage
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_ftp_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' and adds that disk usage is included, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or behavior when no accounts exist. Given the simplicity of a list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence of six words, with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key output characteristic.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally clarify the return structure more thoroughly. It mentions 'disk usage' but omits other likely fields (e.g., username, domain). However, for a simple list tool with no parameters, the description is adequate for most use cases and is not misleading.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered by an empty properties object. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds minimal semantic context by specifying 'all' and 'with disk usage', but these are output-related, not parameter-related.
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?
Description clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('FTP accounts'), scope ('all'), and a key output detail ('with disk usage'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_ftp_sessions (which lists sessions, not accounts) and get_disk_usage (which gets overall disk usage, not per-account).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_ftp_sessions or get_disk_usage. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.