list-directoryRetrieve files and subdirectories from a specified FTP server path to inspect available remote contents before downloading, uploading, or managing files.
List contents of an FTP directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotePath | Yes | Path of the directory on the FTP server |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| entries | Yes | ||
| fileCount | Yes | ||
| totalCount | Yes | ||
| directoryCount | 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: -falseOutput schema / properties / entries / descriptionRemoved value: -"Directory entries"Output schema / properties / entries / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / properties / path / descriptionRemoved value: -"The directory that was listed"v1.2.1v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is in the annotations, such as pagination, output format details, or error handling.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it versus other directory-related tools.
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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 ('List') and resource ('contents of an FTP directory'). It is clear and distinct from siblings like download-file or delete-directory, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.