ftp-mcp

ftp_read

Read the contents of a remote text file from an FTP/FTPS/SFTP server by providing the connection name and file path. Set an optional maximum size to avoid loading large files.

Instructions

Read the contents of a remote text 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_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Remote file path
`maxSize`	No	Maximum file size in bytes to read (default: 1MB)
`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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads text contents but does not disclose return format, error behavior on missing files or binary data, maxSize enforcement, or whether it is safe/non-mutating. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for the tool's simplicity.

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 read operation with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not specify return value expectations or distinguish text-file reading from ftp_download for binary files. Given no output schema or annotations, this leaves modest ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but no compensation is needed due to the high 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('remote text file'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'ftp_download' by limiting to text file contents, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for reading remote text files, which gives reasonable context for selection. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with closely related siblings like ftp_download, ftp_grep, or ftp_stat.

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