MCP Server for FTP Access

Append to File

append-file

Add content to the end of a file on an FTP server, creating it if missing. Use UTF-8 or base64 encoding for text or binary data.

Instructions

Append content to the end of a file on the FTP server (creates the file if it does not exist). Pass encoding "base64" for binary content.

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": {
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append-file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Content to append to the file
`encoding`	No	Encoding of the provided content (default: utf8)
`remotePath`	Yes	Path of the file on the FTP server

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`remotePath`	Yes
`appendedBytes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.2Sep 13, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Addedv1.2.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the file is created if it doesn't exist (not obvious from annotations, which say non-destructive), and the binary encoding option. It doesn't mention permissions or error behavior, but the create-if-missing behavior is a meaningful disclosure.

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 compact sentences with zero waste. The core operation is front-loaded, and the create-if-missing and encoding hints follow immediately. Every clause 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 3-param mutation tool with an output schema (return values need not be explained), the description covers the operation, create-if-missing behavior, and binary encoding. It could mention permissions or max file size but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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% – all three parameters (remotePath, content, encoding) have descriptions and encoding has an enum. The description adds the 'base64 for binary content' hint, which clarifies the enum's purpose beyond the schema's plain 'Encoding of the provided content', but is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (file on FTP server) and distinguishes itself from siblings like upload-file (overwrites/uploads entire file) and edit-file (in-place modification) by specifying append-to-end semantics. The parenthetical about creating the file adds scope clarity.

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 when to use it (appending rather than overwriting) but does not explicitly compare against siblings like upload-file or edit-file. An agent can infer the distinction from the verb 'append' but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server