ftp-mcp

ftp_delete

Remove remote files from any FTP/FTPS/SFTP server by providing connection name and file path. Streamline file management by deleting unnecessary files with a single tool call.

Instructions

Delete a remote file

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": {
      "connection": "<connection>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Remote file path to delete
`connection`	Yes	Connection name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'Delete' without addressing permanence, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For a destructive operation, more context is needed to set user expectations.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of destructive implications or distinction from directory deletion, making it somewhat incomplete relative to the operation's risk and sibling tool context.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (path and connection), each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a remote file' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ftp_rmdir (delete directory) and ftp_remove_site (remove site). The intent is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool's function.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftp_rmdir for directories or ftp_remove_site. The description merely states the action without mentioning exclusions, preconditions, or recommended contexts.

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