ftp-mcp

ftp_sync

Synchronize directories between local and remote servers. Control sync direction, preview changes with dry-run, and optionally delete extra files.

Instructions

Synchronize local and remote directories (like FileZilla synchronized browsing)

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_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Only show what would change without actually syncing (default: false)
`direction`	Yes	Sync direction
`localPath`	Yes	Local directory path
`connection`	Yes	Connection name
`remotePath`	Yes	Remote directory path
`deleteExtra`	No	Delete files that don't exist on source side (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the potentially destructive deleteExtra behavior, dry-run capability, or any side effects, leaving the agent unaware of risks.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. The analogy adds clarity without unnecessary length.

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?

The schema richly documents all parameters, but the description lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., safety, dry-run, deletion implications) for a complex sync operation. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent evaluating tool safety.

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 100% coverage for all six parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It offers no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 tool synchronizes local and remote directories, using a familiar analogy to FileZilla synchronized browsing. It conveys the core purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like ftp_mirror.

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. The FileZilla analogy hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary context.

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