ftp-mcp

ftp_rename

Rename a remote file or directory on an FTP, FTPS, or SFTP server. Specify the connection, current path, and new path to update the file structure.

Instructions

Rename a remote file or directory

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>",
      "oldPath": "<oldPath>",
      "newPath": "<newPath>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`newPath`	Yes	New remote path
`oldPath`	Yes	Current remote path
`connection`	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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation but does not mention side effects, error conditions, whether it can overwrite existing paths, or permission requirements.

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 that front-loads the main action and resource. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is minimal. There is no output schema or annotations to supplement it, and it omits important contextual details such as whether oldPath/newPath are relative to the current directory, how conflicts are handled, or any side effects.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (newPath, oldPath, connection), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Rename') and the resource ('remote file or directory'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ftp_move, which could also involve renaming in a broader sense.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ftp_move, ftp_copy). The description lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or context for when renaming is appropriate.

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