delete-fileRemoves a specified file from an FTP server by providing its remote path. Use it to clean up or manage files on remote FTP locations.
Delete a file from the FTP server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotePath | Yes | Path of the file 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 / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.2.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "remotePath": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "remotePath",
+ "deleted"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline — no note on irreversibility of the remote file, permission requirements, or behavior when the path does not exist.
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, verb-first and waste-free. Nothing redundant is included and the scope qualifier is attached directly to the action.
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 so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. Still, for a destructive remote-FTP operation the definition is thin on failure modes and scope limits, leaving it only minimally complete.
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% with a single documented remotePath parameter, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, path-syntax, or directory-vs-file clarification, making the 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (file) and scopes it to the FTP server, so an agent can distinguish it from delete-directory and rename-file. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, which only the resource noun implies.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling delete-directory or when to prefer rename/overwrite instead of deletion. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.