ftp-mcp

ftp_edit_site

Update specific fields of a saved FTP site profile, such as host, port, credentials, or remote path.

Instructions

Update specific fields of a saved site profile

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_edit_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	No
`name`	Yes	Site name to edit
`port`	No
`password`	No
`protocol`	No
`username`	No
`passphrase`	No
`remotePath`	No
`privateKeyPath`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context by indicating a partial update ('specific fields') and that it operates on an existing saved site profile, but it omits details about reversibility, permissions, and error behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, and it front-loads the core action and target. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify the return value, error conditions, or whether the site must already exist, leaving the agent without essential context for safe and correct invocation.

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 phrase 'specific fields' conveys that only provided parameters are updated, a key semantic not present in the schema. However, with only 11% schema description coverage and no parameter names listed, it doesn't compensate for the low coverage across 9 parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'saved site profile', and specifies 'specific fields', indicating a partial modification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_add_site and ftp_remove_site.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Usage is only vaguely implied by the verb 'Update', with no reference to sibling tools like ftp_add_site or ftp_connect.

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