Create a new FTP account with username, password, optional quota, domain, and home directory settings for controlled hosting file access.
Create a new FTP account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | FTP username | |
| quota | No | Disk quota in MB (0 for unlimited) | 0 |
| domain | No | Associated domain | |
| homedir | No | Home directory path (relative to account home) | |
| password | Yes | FTP password |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but the description offers no additional context such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., creating a home directory), or reversibility. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
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, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.
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 description is incomplete for a create tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify return behavior, whether an FTP account can be created with just a username and password, or any constraints (e.g., domain must exist). The schema covers parameters, but the overall behavior is not adequately described.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Thus, the baseline score of 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 'Create a new FTP account' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ftp_accounts, delete_ftp_account, and change_ftp_password. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different FTP management tool would be appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.