delete-directoryRemove an unwanted directory from your FTP server by specifying its remote path. Use this to clean up old folders and free space on the server.
Delete a directory from the FTP server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotePath | Yes | Path of the directory to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | 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: -falsev1.2.1v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the target system and says nothing about empty-directory behavior, recursion, or failure modes 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse enough to leave the tool's important edge cases unexplained.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, so return values and safety need not be re-explained. Still, for a destructive filesystem operation on a remote server, the omission of non-empty-directory behavior and irreversibility leaves a meaningful gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter (remotePath) already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no path format, relative-vs-absolute, or quoting detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a clear verb (delete) and resource (directory) plus the target system (FTP server). The resource noun implicitly separates it from delete-file, though the description never says so explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus delete-file, or versus create-directory/rename-file. No mention of prerequisites such as whether the directory must be empty or whether the deletion is recursive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.