FTP Doc Reader MCP Server

by hackerpl

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

search_docs

Search Word documents on remote FTP servers for specific keywords, returning matching files with context snippets.

Instructions

Search .doc/.docx files in a remote FTP directory for content matching the query.

Args: query: Search keyword or phrase for content matching (1-500 characters). directory_path: Remote FTP directory path to search in (1-1024 characters).

Returns: List of search results sorted by snippet count (descending), or an error message string on failure.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "directory_path": "<directory_path>"
    },
    "name": "search_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`directory_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses return format (sorted list by snippet count) and error message on failure. With no annotations, it covers basic behavior but omits details like permissions or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Reasonably concise with structured Args/Returns sections. No superfluous content; every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple parameters, no siblings, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and output. Could mention search behavior (case-sensitivity, regex) but sufficient for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds meaningful constraints (character length limits) and clarifies purpose for each parameter, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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?

The description clearly states it searches .doc/.docx files in an FTP directory for content matching the query. It specifies the resource and action, but lacks differentiation from potential siblings (none present).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what it does without context on scenarios or alternatives.

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

search_docsB