rename-fileChange the name or location of a file or directory on an FTP server by specifying the current path and the new path.
Rename or move a file or directory on the FTP server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toPath | Yes | New path for the file or directory | |
| fromPath | Yes | Current path of the file or directory |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toPath | Yes | ||
| renamed | Yes | ||
| fromPath | 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: -falsev1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it operates on directories as well as files and on FTP specifically; it does not disclose what happens if the destination path already exists, which is the key behavioral question for a destructive rename.
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 front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the scope qualifier second. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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 carry the mutation/destructive profile. The one meaningful gap is destination-overwrite behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent, destructive move.
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 both fromPath/toPath are documented as current and new paths, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or root-relative guidance 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 specific verb pair (rename/move) and resource (file or directory) plus the operating context (FTP server). It is distinguishable from siblings like edit-file or upload-file, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.
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 rename/move versus edit-file or create-directory, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.