ftp-mcp

ftp_rmdir

Remove a remote directory over FTP/FTPS/SFTP, optionally recursive. Specify connection and remote path to delete the directory and its contents.

Instructions

Remove a remote 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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_rmdir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Remote directory path to remove
`recursive`	No	Remove directory and all contents (default: false)
`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?

The description only states the core action and does not disclose important behavioral traits such as failure on non-empty directories unless recursive is set, irreversibility of removal, or permission requirements. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden but lacks these details for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and every word contributes to the primary purpose.

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 schema covering parameters, the description lacks essential context for a destructive tool: no mention of recursive behavior, what happens to contents, whether it prompts for confirmation, or return values. The absence of a warning about non-empty directories is a notable gap.

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 (path, recursive, connection), so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds no extra context about how parameters affect behavior, matching the baseline score 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 'Remove a remote directory' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (remote directory), which is specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ftp_delete, but the directory focus differentiates it enough from file-oriented tools.

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 such as ftp_delete or ftp_mkdir. It does not mention the recursive parameter or when to set it, so the description offers no context for choosing this tool.

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