Skip to main content
Glama
alxspiker

MCP Server for FTP Access

by alxspiker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Download File

download-file
Read-only

Retrieve a file from an FTP server using its remote path. Text files return as-is, while binary files return base64-encoded for safe transfer.

Instructions

Download a file from the FTP server. Text files are returned as-is; binary files are returned base64-encoded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
remotePathYesPath of the file on the FTP server

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
encodingYes
remotePathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedOutput schema / properties / content / description
      Removed value: -"File content, encoded per the encoding field"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / encoding / description
      Removed value: -"utf8 for text files, base64 for binary files"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "description": "File content, encoded per the encoding field",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "encoding": {
+      "description": "utf8 for text files, base64 for binary files",
+      "enum": [
+        "utf8",
+        "base64"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "remotePath": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "remotePath",
+    "content",
+    "encoding"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added contribution is the type-dependent encoding behavior: text returned as-is, binary base64-encoded. That is a genuinely useful, non-obvious trait an agent must know to interpret the response. It stops short of mentioning size limits, the text/binary detection heuristic, or failure modes.

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 action is front-loaded and the encoding caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, yet the description still handles the one non-obvious return nuance (base64 for binary). With a single fully documented required parameter and matching annotations, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single remotePath parameter is already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or constraint detail beyond what structured data provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download a file from the FTP server'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct in intent from upload-file, list-directory, and delete-file. It does not explicitly name a sibling or draw a boundary, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says what condition should route an agent here versus list-directory or edit-file, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the file must exist or be readable). Only the retrieval semantics are described.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools