Update FTP account credentials and settings for an ISPConfig client. Provide the client ID and FTP user ID, then pass the fields to modify.
Update an FTP user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Fields to update | |
| user_id | Yes | FTP user ID | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an FTP user', which merely states the operation type without revealing what happens during the update: whether existing values are replaced or merged, whether any fields are immutable, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is no more informative than the tool name itself.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it does not earn its place: it is redundant with the tool name and lacks any structure that aids an agent. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient, valuable communication.
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?
The tool has a required nested 'params' object with no defined shape, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides zero context about valid update fields, prerequisites, side effects, or invocation examples. For an agent to correctly construct a call, the description is almost entirely inadequate, especially given the large sibling tool set.
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 description coverage is 100%: the schema describes client_id, user_id, and params. The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters; 'params' remains an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed. However, because the schema already documents the parameters at a basic level, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Update an FTP user' is essentially a word-for-word restatement of the tool name 'ftp_user_update'. It provides no clarifying detail about which FTP user attributes are affected or how this differs from the actual update semantics, so it qualifies as a tautology rather than a distinct purpose statement.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like ftp_user_add, ftp_user_delete, and ftp_user_list exist, but no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints are provided. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.