MCPDactyl

Create a directory

files_mkdir

Creates a new folder under a specified root directory on a Pterodactyl panel to organize server files.

Instructions

Create a new folder under a root directory.

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": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "files_mkdir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`root`	No
`panel`	No	Name of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
`server`	Yes
`baseUrl`	No	Inline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
`clientKey`	No	Inline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
`applicationKey`	No	Inline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, behavior when the folder already exists, path defaults, or the role of the required server parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is efficient and front-loads the action. It is not padded or repetitive, though its brevity contributes to the missing context elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits required parameter semantics, path resolution rules, credential override behavior, and what happens on name conflicts.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 7 parameters and only 57% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It clarifies 'root' only implicitly via 'under a root directory' and says nothing about the required name or server parameters or the inline credential overrides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: create a new folder. It does not distinguish this operation from sibling files_* tools or clarify that it creates a directory rather than a file, but the core action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_upload_url or files_write, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The phrase 'under a root directory' hints at scoping but does not tell the agent when to select this tool.

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

Deploy Server