Create directories on remote SSH hosts, including parent paths by default. Use it to set up folders before uploading files or running commands.
在远程主机上创建目录（默认类似 mkdir -p 递归创建上级目录）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | 是否类似 'mkdir -p' 递归创建上级目录，默认 true | |
| remotePath | Yes | 待创建的远程目录绝对路径 | |
| connectionId | No | 目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at idempotent-style behavior via the 'mkdir -p' analogy, but says nothing about error handling when the directory already exists, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failure – and the mkdir -p note merely repeats the schema's own recursive parameter text.
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 short sentence with the core operation front-loaded and a brief parenthetical qualifier; nothing is padded. The parenthetical is mildly redundant with the schema, keeping it just under a 5.
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?
For a simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves out existence/overwrite behavior and connection prerequisites, which an agent would want before invoking a remote write.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's parenthetical about recursive parent creation duplicates the schema text for the recursive parameter rather than adding new meaning.
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+resource: creating a directory on a remote host, which is inherently distinguishable from siblings like sftp_write_file, sftp_upload, or sftp_list_dir. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a connection must exist or that connectionId/current default is used), and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.