Delete remote files or directories on SSH servers via SFTP, with optional recursive removal for non-empty directories and safeguards to prevent accidental deletion.
删除远程文件或目录（支持非空目录递归级联删除，内置防环保护）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | 若为目录且非空，是否级联递归删除，默认 false（防止误删） | |
| remotePath | Yes | 待删除的远程文件或目录绝对路径 | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses recursive cascade behavior and built-in loop protection. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible or whether permissions are required, which matters for a destructive operation.
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?
Single compact sentence in a parenthetical structure; front-loaded with the core action and supplementary behaviors. Slightly dense but no wasted words.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers recursive behavior and loop protection but omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and error/return behavior. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a delete operation.
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 (recursive, remotePath, connectionId) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions recursive deletion at a high level but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('删除远程文件或目录' = delete remote file/directory) and adds distinguishing details (non-empty directory recursive cascade deletion, built-in loop protection). Clear enough to separate from siblings like sftp_upload or sftp_write_file, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 this vs alternatives or when to avoid it. The recursive default of false implies a safety posture, but there is no explicit when/when-not instruction or prerequisite (e.g., connection state) mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.