ftp-mcp

ftp_upload_directory

Recursively uploads an entire local directory to a remote FTP/SFTP server. Specify the local path, remote destination, and connection; overwrite existing files as needed.

Instructions

Upload an entire local directory to the remote server recursively

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>"
    },
    "name": "ftp_upload_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`localPath`	Yes	Local directory path
`overwrite`	No	Overwrite existing files (default: true)
`connection`	Yes	Connection name
`remotePath`	Yes	Remote destination directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the operation is recursive. It does not mention overwrite behavior, directory creation, permissions, or side effects on existing remote files, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's core function.

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?

The tool performs a complex recursive operation, but the description lacks important context: no success/failure behavior, no mention of overwrite semantics, no preconditions, and no explanation of how remote directories are handled. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably predict the tool's full behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the overall directory-scope intent, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: uploading an entire local directory to a remote server recursively. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_upload (single file) and ftp_sync/ftp_mirror by emphasizing the recursive whole-directory scope.

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 usage for recursive directory uploads but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as ftp_upload, ftp_sync, or ftp_mirror, nor does it mention exclusions like single-file uploads.

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