ftp-deploy-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: server listing, download, directory creation, deletion, connectivity test, directory listing, file upload, and directory deployment. No ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'ftp_' prefix with snake_case verbs (e.g., ftp_list_servers, ftp_download). Naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools cover the essential operations for an FTP deployment server without being excessive or insufficient. The count is well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD operations are covered (list, download, upload, delete, mkdir) plus deployment and connection testing. Minor gaps like rename or file info are not critical for the deployment focus.
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 20, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that 'Directories are listed first', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the second adds a behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify the format of returned data (e.g., full paths, file sizes, dates) or behavior for invalid paths, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (path and server), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already states, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly identifies the tool's action: 'List the contents of a remote directory'. It specifies that paths are relative to the server root and that directories are listed first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_list_servers.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use ftp_list versus its siblings. The description lacks explicit context about when to choose this tool over ftp_list_servers, ftp_download, or other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses recursion and relativity, but fails to mention authorization needs, side effects, error handling (e.g., if directory exists), or success criteria.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded, and free of verbose or redundant content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple directory creation tool, the description is fairly complete. It covers recursion and path relativity. Lacks error behavior and return value info, but output schema is absent and tool is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the path property. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (create) and resource (remote directory), with additional specificity: 'recursively' and 'relative to the server root'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like ftp_list, ftp_download, etc.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ftp_upload, ftp_deploy). The description only states what the tool does, not under what circumstances it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals some behaviors (recursive upload, single connection, glob application, dry_run) but omits details like default excludes, error handling, permission requirements, and return values. The mention of default excludes is helpful but incomplete.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the main action and critical features (recursive upload, connection, globs, dry_run). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main functionality for a moderately complex tool (6 params, no output schema), but lacks details on default excludes, error behavior, and return values. It does not fully compensate for missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about recursion and glob behavior, but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'upload' and the resource 'local directory', and highlights key features: recursive, single connection, exclude/include globs, dry_run. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ftp_upload (single file) and ftp_download.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for bulk deployment via 'recursively upload a local directory' and 'over a single connection', but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses three actions (connect, list, report success) but does not clarify what 'report success' entails (e.g., return value, success indicator) or whether there are side effects. Moderately transparent but incomplete.
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?
A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention what the tool returns, but the key actions are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'server' is described in the input schema with default behavior. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clearly states it connects to a server, lists root directory, and reports success. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ftp_list (which likely lists a specific path) and ftp_list_servers (which lists configured servers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for testing connectivity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_list (for listing files) or ftp_list_servers (for viewing server configurations). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the recursive behavior for directories and a safety guarantee about not deleting server root. However, it does not mention error handling, confirmation requirements, or return values, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and a second sentence for an important safety constraint. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the essential behavior and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or what happens when path does not exist. For a destructive operation without output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explicitly linking the 'recursive' parameter to directory deletion and adding the safety constraint about server root, which is not in the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (remote file or directory), with a condition for directories (recursive:true). Distinguishes from sibling tools which perform different operations like list, upload, download.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implicit usage via the description of functionality, but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid compared to siblings. The safety note 'Never deletes the server root' offers a constraint but not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important non-obvious behaviors: auto-creating parent directories and refusing overwrite unless overwrite:true. It does not mention error handling or return value, but the core behaviors are well-covered.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides key constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could mention the return value or success status. However, it adequately describes the side effects (auto-create directories, overwrite behavior). It does not cover what happens on error or missing remote file, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about auto-creating directories and overwrite behavior, but does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states it downloads a remote file to a local path, and adds key behaviors (auto-creating parent directories, overwrite guard). This distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_upload, ftp_list, ftp_delete, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (download vs upload), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_deploy or ftp_list. No exclusion or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that passwords/keys are never revealed and lists output fields, but omits details like speed, authentication requirements, or whether it caches results. For a list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides specifics. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low complexity (zero parameters), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (list of server details) and a critical behavioral note (no secrets leaked). It could describe the output format (e.g., array of objects) but the listed fields compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the output fields and adding a security guarantee, which based on the guidelines yields a baseline of 4 with no penalty.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all configured FTP/FTPS/SFTP servers'. It explicitly enumerates the fields returned (name, protocol, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform file operations.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated, the context of sibling tools (all action-oriented) implies this tool is for pre-operation configuration review. A note on when to use (e.g., before downloading) would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-creates parent directories and sets a default remote path. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.
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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the core action and key behavioral traits. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and two behavioral details. Missing information on success/failure response, overwrite policy, and prerequisites, but sufficient for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the default behavior for remote_path. It adds value with auto-creation context but does not significantly extend beyond schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb 'upload' and the resource 'local file' to the server, with specifics about auto-creating parent directories and default remote path. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ftp_download, ftp_list, etc.
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?
The description implies usage for uploading a single file to the server, with details on auto-creation and default path. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ftp-deploy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alebgl77/ftp-deploy-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alebgl77/ftp-deploy-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ftp-deploy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alebgl77/ftp-deploy-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alebgl77/ftp-deploy-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alebgl77/ftp-deploy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server