What can you do with this server?

The RemoteZip MCP Server allows you to interact with remote zip files over HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP without downloading the entire archive. * List Files: Retrieve a complete list of all files contained within a remote zip archive * Extract Files: Extract specific files from remote zip archives to local storage with optional path specification * Get File Information: Obtain detailed information about individual files within zip archives * Get Zip Statistics: Access overall statistics about remote zip archives (size, file count, etc.) * Partial Reading: Only downloads necessary portions of zip files for efficient bandwidth usage

Which integrations are available for this server?

Includes automated release workflows that build and release Python packages when version tags are pushed to GitHub repositories Provides tools for accessing remote zip files over HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP protocols, allowing file listing, extraction, and statistics without downloading entire archives

How do I use RemoteZip MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@RemoteZip MCP Server list files in https://example.com/data.zip" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

RemoteZip MCP Server

by yuriyo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

RemoteZip MCP Server

An MCP server that provides tools for accessing remote zip files over HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP protocols without downloading the entire archive.

Features

List files in remote zip archives
Extract individual files from remote zip archives
Get file information and statistics
Support for HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP protocols
Partial reading - only downloads necessary parts of the zip file

Related MCP server: Filesystem MCP Server (HTTP Streaming)

Installation

From Source

Install Python 3.10 or higher

Clone the repository:

git clone https://github.com/yourusername/remotezip-mcp.git
cd remotezip-mcp

Install dependencies:
```
pip install -e .
```

From GitHub Releases

Download the latest release from the Releases page and install:

pip install remotezip_mcp-1.0.0-py3-none-any.whl

MCP Server Configuration

For VSCode

Install the MCP extension:
- Search for "MCP (Model Context Protocol)" in VSCode extensions
- Install the extension by Anthropic
Create MCP configuration file:
- Create the file ~/.vscode/mcp.json (on macOS/Linux) or %APPDATA%\Code\User\mcp.json (on Windows)
- Or use the global config: ~/.config/mcp/mcp.json
Add the following configuration to your mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "remotezip": {
      "command": "remotezip-mcp",
      "args": [],
      "env": {
        "PATH": "$PATH"
      }
    }
  }
}

Restart VSCode to load the MCP server

For Cursor

Open Cursor settings:
- Press Cmd/Ctrl + , to open settings
- Or go to File → Preferences → Settings
Navigate to MCP settings:
- Search for "mcp" in the settings search bar
- Look for "MCP: Servers" or "Model Context Protocol" section
Add a new MCP server with these exact settings:

Name: RemoteZip MCP Server
Command: remotezip-mcp
Arguments: Leave this field empty
Environment Variables: (optional)

Save and restart Cursor to activate the MCP server

Alternative: Manual MCP Configuration

If your editor doesn't have built-in MCP support, you can also run the server manually:

# Start the MCP server
remotezip-mcp

Then connect to it using your MCP client with the server running on the default port.

Troubleshooting

Command not found: Make sure remotezip-mcp is in your PATH after installation
Permission denied: Try running with sudo or check file permissions
Server won't start: Verify the installation with remotezip-mcp --help
Configuration not loading: Check the JSON syntax in your mcp.json file

Usage

Run the server:

python remotezip_server.py

Or use the installed command:

remotezip-mcp

Tools

list_files(url): Get list of files in the archive
extract_file(url, filename, local_path): Extract a file to local storage
get_file_info(url, filename): Get details about a specific file
get_zip_statistics(url): Get overall statistics of the archive

Development

Setup Development Environment

# Create virtual environment
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate

# Install in development mode
pip install -e .

Running Tests

# Run the MCP server
python remotezip_server.py

Creating Releases

Use the provided release script:

./release.sh 1.0.0

This will:

Create a git tag r1.0.0
Push the tag to GitHub
Trigger GitHub Actions to build and release

GitHub Actions

The repository includes automated release workflows:

Release Workflow (.github/workflows/release.yml): Automatically builds and releases when version tags are pushed
Triggers on tags matching pattern r*
Builds Python wheel and source distribution
Creates GitHub release with generated release notes

Dependencies

remotezip: For partial reading of remote zip files
mcp: Model Context Protocol framework
fastmcp: FastMCP server implementation

License

MIT License - see LICENSE file for details

Available Tools

4 tools

extract_fileB

Extract a specific file from a remote zip archive to local storage.

Args:
    url: URL of the remote zip file
    filename: Name of the file to extract
    local_path: Local directory to extract to (default: current directory)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`filename`	Yes
`local_path`	No	.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it extracts a file to local storage but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), permissions required, or behavior with large archives. The write operation implies destructiveness that is not addressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by parameter definitions in a standard format. However, it could be slightly more structured with a separate 'Use Cases' section to improve readability.

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 tool is simple with 3 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the basics. However, it misses important context such as error handling (e.g., file not found in archive), network requirements, and example usage. With better annotations, more might be expected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'URL of the remote zip file'). They do not specify expected formats, constraints (e.g., is filename a path inside the archive?), or error conditions. More detail is needed for each parameter.

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 the tool extracts a specific file from a remote zip archive to local storage. The verb 'extract' and resource 'specific file from remote zip' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings like list_files and get_file_info, which serve informational purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the zip is accessible) or scenarios where sibling tools should be used first, such as listing contents before extraction.

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

get_file_infoC

Get information about a specific file in the remote zip archive.

Args:
    url: URL of the remote zip file
    filename: Name of the file

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`filename`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. The minimal description fails to disclose behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and to the point, with the primary purpose stated first and organized with an Args section. However, it is more under-specified than concise.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 required params, no enums, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to specify what kind of information is returned, relying entirely on the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists parameter names in an Args section without adding any further meaning or constraints. It adds virtually no value over the input schema.

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 the action ('get information') and the resource ('a specific file in the remote zip archive'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like extract_file, get_zip_statistics, and list_files.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention limitations or prerequisites. It simply states the function.

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

get_zip_statisticsB

Get statistics about the remote zip archive.

Args:
    url: URL of the remote zip file

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The minimal description fails to add transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a docstring style with Args section, which is structured. Every sentence earns its place but could be more informative without adding length.

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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain what statistics are returned (e.g., total size, file count). For a single-parameter tool, the description should provide more context about the tool's output or behavior beyond the minimal statement.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by stating 'url: URL of the remote zip file', explaining that the parameter is a URL for a remote zip file. However, it does not specify format or accessibility requirements.

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 'Get statistics about the remote zip archive' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('remote zip archive'). It is distinct from sibling tools like extract_file, get_file_info, and list_files.

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 when to prefer get_zip_statistics over get_file_info or list_files. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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

list_filesA

Get list of files in a remote zip archive.

Args:
    url: URL of the remote zip file (http, https, ftp supported)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states the tool retrieves a file list, but does not disclose performance, error handling, or whether the entire archive is downloaded. Basic but incomplete.

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 very concise: a single sentence for the purpose plus a clear parameter list. No unnecessary text, well front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks details on behavior for invalid URLs, non-zip files, or large archives. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'url' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying it is for a remote zip file and supporting http, https, and ftp. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 specifies the action (Get list of files) and resource (remote zip archive), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_file and get_file_info.

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 listing files in a zip, but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. It mentions supported URL schemes, but lacks guidance on context.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

4 tool updatesSep 17, 2025
- First observedextract_file
- First observedget_file_info
- First observedget_zip_statistics
- First observedlist_files

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored 2026-05-02 02:50 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: listing files, getting file info, getting archive statistics, and extracting a file. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (extract_file, get_file_info, get_zip_statistics, list_files) with underscores, forming a predictable naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

4 tools is ideal for a focused utility server that reads and extracts from remote zip archives. Each tool adds value without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers essential read operations (list, info, stats) and a single extraction action. Missing batch extraction or pattern-based extraction, but core workflows are supported.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

zip-archive-create-extract-bomb-guard A
io.github.theluckystrike
Create, inspect and extract zip archives offline, with traversal, symlink and zip-bomb guards.
File Systems Developer Tools Security
121
stagenth · file-relay A
com.stagenth
Cloud file relay: chunked uploads, folders, share links, inline text reads, ZIP packing.
Cloud Storage Web Scraping
252
mcp A
ai.foura
Reliable web access for AI agents: smart HTTP, rotating proxies, and full-browser rendering.
Web Scraping Browser Automation
434
Valet A
io.github.valetdotdev
Get share links, publish and manage websites, artifacts and agents. No account needed.
Content Management Systems Developer Tools Agent Orchestration
161

Related MCP Servers

Mcp7zOp
File Systems Developer Tools App Automation
zv-louis
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A local MCP server that provides tools for working with 7-Zip archives, enabling archive creation, extraction, item management, and file system operations through a standardized interface.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-06 06:30 UTC)
MIT
Filesystem MCP Server (HTTP
File Systems Developer Tools
jeswin
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables remote file system operations (read/write files, manage directories, search files) over HTTP using OAuth 2.0 authentication, with support for web-based clients and multiple concurrent sessions.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-01 07:01 UTC)
11 npm
MIT
ZIP MCP
File Systems Developer Tools App Automation
gniquil123
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A powerful ZIP file processing tool that enables creating, extracting, listing, adding, deleting, viewing, and verifying ZIP files through MCP protocol integration with AI development environments.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-08 18:26 UTC)
13 npm
MIT
ZIP MCP Server
File Systems Developer Tools App Automation
loscolmebrothers
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
Provides tools for AI assistants to compress, decompress, and manage ZIP archives including metadata retrieval. It supports directory compression, password protection, and configurable extraction options.
Updated a year ago (2025-10-17 19:37 UTC)
4
7 npm
ISC