Skip to main content
Glama

fs_mkdirp

Create directories recursively on remote servers via SSH, ensuring parent directories exist automatically for reliable file system setup.

Instructions

Creates directories recursively

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesSSH session ID
pathYesDirectory path to create
modeNoDirectory permissions mode

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the 'fs_mkdirp' logic using SFTP.
    export async function makeDirectories(
      sessionId: string,
      path: string
    ): Promise<boolean> {
      logger.debug('Creating directories', { sessionId, path });
      
      const session = sessionManager.getSession(sessionId);
      if (!session) {
        throw new Error(`Session ${sessionId} not found or expired`);
      }
      
      try {
        await session.sftp.mkdir(path, true); // recursive = true
        logger.debug('Directories created successfully', { sessionId, path });
        return true;
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error('Failed to create directories', { sessionId, path, error });
        throw wrapError(
          error,
          ErrorCode.EFS,
          `Failed to create directories ${path}. Check parent directory permissions.`
        );
      }
    }
  • src/mcp.ts:454-459 (registration)
    Registration of 'fs_mkdirp' in the request handler switch statement.
    case 'fs_mkdirp': {
      const params = FSPathSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await makeDirectories(params.sessionId, params.path);
      logger.info('Directories created', { sessionId: params.sessionId, path: params.path });
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the recursive creation behavior, which is useful, but fails to disclose critical aspects like error handling, permission requirements, or whether it overwrites existing directories. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover error cases, return values, or security implications, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful context about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining path format or mode defaults, meeting the baseline for 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 clearly states the action ('creates directories') and specifies the recursive behavior, which distinguishes it from simple directory creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fs_write or fs_rename, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an SSH session), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools in the sibling list.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/oaslananka/mcp-ssh-tool'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server