ftp-mcp

ftp_mirror

Synchronize directories between an FTP server and local machine in one direction, deleting extra files to match the source.

Instructions

Mirror a remote directory to local or vice versa (one-way sync with delete)

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>",
      "localPath": "<localPath>",
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>",
      "direction": "<direction>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_mirror"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Only show what would change (default: false)
`direction`	Yes	Mirror direction
`localPath`	Yes	Local directory path
`connection`	Yes	Connection name
`remotePath`	Yes	Remote directory path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 discloses the destructive behavior of deletion via 'with delete', which is critical. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient but may be too terse for a tool of this complexity; however, it earns points for clarity 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits usage guidance, warnings about irreversible deletion, and explanation of the important dryRun parameter in the context of a destructive operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 a mirror operation with a specific verb ('Mirror') and resource ('remote directory to local or vice versa'), and distinguishes itself with 'one-way sync with delete'. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ftp_sync'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_sync, ftp_upload_directory, or ftp_download_directory. The description implies usage for one-way syncing but lacks explicit exclusions or context.

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