ws_ftp_account_getRetrieve a specific FTP account by its ID without exposing the password. Use this to fetch account details for a given service and FTP account ID.
Get one FTP account by id. The password is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service identifier the zone belongs to. See ws_service_list for the account's services. | |
| ftpAccount | Yes | FTP account id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds a valuable behavioral note that the password is never returned, which is not in annotations and is important for agent expectations. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical security caveat is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It specifies the resource, the lookup key, and a key behavior (password omission). It does not mention return format or error cases, but these are not required given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (service and ftpAccount) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('FTP account'), and specifies the key by 'id', which clearly distinguishes it from ws_ftp_account_list and other sibling tools. It also adds a critical detail (password never returned) that further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving a single FTP account by ID, and the sibling ws_ftp_account_list exists for listing, so usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites, though the need for a 'service' identifier is visible in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.