ftp-mcp

ftp_connection_info

Retrieve detailed configuration and status information about a specific FTP connection to diagnose issues or verify setup.

Instructions

Get detailed info about a specific connection

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>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_connection_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Connection name

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets info, but does not disclose whether it requires an active connection, what happens if the connection name is invalid, or what fields are returned. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly confirmed.

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, concise sentence with no filler content. It effectively conveys the core action and target, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what 'detailed info' includes. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. The simplicity of the single-parameter input does not compensate for this gap.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' as the connection name, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get detailed info about a specific connection' clearly identifies a get operation targeting a specific connection, differentiating it from sibling tools like ftp_list_connections. However, it does not specify what 'detailed info' includes, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact purpose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftp_list_connections, nor does it state prerequisites like having an active connection. The context is implied from the tool name and schema but not explicitly stated.

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