create-directoryCreate a new directory on an FTP server by specifying the remote path. Use this to organize files or set up folder structures for uploads.
Create a new directory on the FTP server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotePath | Yes | Path of the directory to create |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| created | Yes | ||
| remotePath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.2.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "created": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "remotePath": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "remotePath",
+ "created"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only that the operation targets the FTP server, which is minimal beyond the resource name. No additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if directory exists, permission requirements) is provided.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear.
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?
With one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks any guidance on usage context or edge cases, which could be helpful for an FTP directory creation tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (directory) on the FTP server, making the purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like delete-directory or list-directory, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., parent directory must exist) or alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.