ftp-mcp

ftp_add_site

Save FTP/FTPS/SFTP server login details as a named site profile, allowing reuse across file operations.

Instructions

Save a connection profile to the site manager

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "host": "<host>",
      "protocol": "<protocol>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_add_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes	Server hostname or IP
`name`	Yes	Unique site name
`port`	No	Server port
`password`	No	Password
`protocol`	Yes	Protocol
`username`	Yes	Username
`passphrase`	No	Private key passphrase
`remotePath`	No	Default remote directory
`privateKeyPath`	No	Path to SSH private key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic function. It does not disclose behavior around duplicate names, validation, persistence, or potential errors, leaving the agent to guess about side effects of this mutation operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and to the point, making every word earn its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description needed to provide richer context. It does not explain return values, failure conditions, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: each of the 9 parameters has a description, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, achieving the baseline for complete schema 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 the action ('Save') and resource ('a connection profile'), and implies it adds a new profile to the site manager. It distinguishes from siblings like ftp_edit_site and ftp_remove_site, though it does not explicitly say 'create' or mention alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftp_edit_site or ftp_connect. The only usage signal is the tool name itself, 'add_site', which implies creating a profile, but the description does not elaborate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.