Provides a tool to test Git-over-SSH authentication to Bitbucket, confirming SSH keys are configured and loaded for reliable git access.
Provides a tool to test Git-over-SSH authentication to GitHub, verifying that SSH keys are correctly configured and loaded for seamless git operations.
Provides a tool to test Git-over-SSH authentication to GitLab, ensuring SSH keys are properly set up for git operations.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ssh-mcp run 'uptime' on my production server"
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.
Make SSH work for AI tools. MCP server that manages your SSH environment, diagnoses what's broken, fixes it, and gives your agent remote access to anything.
Fork relationship: This repository is a derivative fork of YawLabs/ssh-mcp. It keeps the upstream SSH/MCP implementation and adds server-side password alias resolution through independent
SSH_CREDENTIAL_<ID>environment variables, removes plaintext passwords from MCP tool arguments, and fixes first-runknown_hostscreation when~/.sshdoes not yet exist. Upstream remains the original project; fork-specific changes are maintained separately here.
The upstream project is built and maintained by Yaw Labs.
One click adds this to your local Yaw MCP config so it's available in every Yaw Terminal session. Or install manually below.
AI CLI tools run in subprocesses where SSH is constantly broken. The agent tries to git pull and gets Permission denied (publickey). It tries to SSH into a server and the agent socket is stale. It tries to deploy and the host key changed because the instance was recreated. Every time, the AI has no idea what's wrong and spirals.
This happens across every situation that needs SSH keys:
Git — clone, pull, push, fetch, submodules, LFS
Package managers — npm install, pip install, go get, cargo, composer from private repos
Server access — SSH, SCP, SFTP, rsync
Tunneling — port forwarding to databases, SOCKS proxies
Deployment — Ansible, Terraform, Capistrano, deploy scripts
Cloud — AWS EC2, GCP, Azure, DigitalOcean, any VPS
ssh-mcp fixes this. It manages the SSH agent, loads keys, diagnoses failures with actionable fix commands, and provides remote operations — all as MCP tools your AI agent can call.
Related MCP server: MCP SSH Server
Add to your MCP client config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ssh": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@txcxgzs/ssh-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1": "your-password"
}
}
}
}On Windows wrap with cmd /c since Node 20+ can't spawn .cmd files directly:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ssh": {
"command": "cmd",
"args": ["/c", "npx", "-y", "@txcxgzs/ssh-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}The @latest tag makes npx re-resolve against the registry on every spawn, so each MCP session uses the newest published version. Or install globally if you'd rather pin (no auto-update):
npm install -g @txcxgzs/ssh-mcp
# then in client config: "command": "ssh-mcp"Tools that fix your local SSH setup so everything else — git, deploys, tunnels — stops breaking.
Tool | Description |
| Ensure ssh-agent is running. Starts one if needed and sets env vars for the session. |
| List all SSH keys in ~/.ssh/ with type, fingerprint, and agent status. |
| Load a key into the running agent. Ensures the agent is started first. |
| Resolve the effective SSH config for a host (hostname, user, port, proxy, identity files). |
| Remove a stale host key and re-scan. Fixes "host key verification failed" errors. |
| Test Git-over-SSH auth to GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, etc. |
| Quick connectivity test with timing and actionable error details. |
Tool | Description |
| Full SSH environment diagnostic. Checks agent, keys, config, known_hosts, and connectivity. Returns exact fix commands for every failure. |
Tool | Description |
| Execute a command on a remote host. Returns stdout, stderr, and exit code (or |
| Read a file from a remote host via SFTP. |
| Write content to a file on a remote host via SFTP. |
| Upload a local file to a remote host via SFTP. |
| Download a file from a remote host to local filesystem. |
| List files in a directory on a remote host. |
| Get metadata for a file or directory (size, mode in octal, uid/gid, mtime/atime, isFile/isDirectory/isSymbolicLink). Use instead of parsing |
| Create a directory via SFTP. Set |
| Delete a file or empty directory via SFTP. Auto-dispatches unlink vs rmdir based on the path's type. Recursive directory delete is intentionally NOT supported -- use |
Tools that wrap common patterns agents build with ssh_exec — faster and less error-prone.
Tool | Description |
| Run a command on multiple hosts in parallel. Returns results per host. Subject to command policy if configured (policy is checked once before fan-out). |
| Search for files remotely with structured parameters ( |
| Read the last N lines of a file, optionally filtered by a grep pattern. |
| Check systemd service status (active, PID, uptime, description). Flags |
When any remote operation fails, ssh-mcp automatically runs diagnostics and includes the results in the error response. Your agent doesn't need to call ssh_diagnose separately — it gets told what's wrong and how to fix it right in the error message.
Remote operations reuse SSH connections automatically. When your agent makes multiple calls to the same host, the first call opens a connection and subsequent calls reuse it. Connections are kept alive for 60 seconds after the last use, then closed automatically.
The pool caps at 100 active connections by default. Set SSH_MCP_MAX_POOL_SIZE=<n> to raise it for fan-out workloads against many distinct hosts (e.g. ssh_multi_exec across a large fleet). When the cap is reached, the pool evicts an idle entry to make room; if every entry is in use it rejects with Connection pool is full.
All connections respect your ~/.ssh/config. Host aliases, custom ports, usernames, identity files, and ProxyJump settings are used automatically. If you have Host myserver configured in your SSH config, just pass host: "myserver" — ssh-mcp resolves everything.
ProxyJump / bastion hosts are supported automatically. If your SSH config has ProxyJump bastion for a host, ssh-mcp connects through the bastion transparently. Chained proxies work too.
All remote operations verify the server's host key against ~/.ssh/known_hosts:
Known host, key matches — accept.
Known host, key changed — reject (MITM protection).
Unknown host — accept on first connection (TOFU). Use ssh_known_hosts_fix to pin the key for future mismatch detection.
For stricter environments, set SSH_MCP_STRICT_HOST_KEY=1 to reject unknown hosts. Add them explicitly with ssh_known_hosts_fix first.
The diagnostic tools (ssh_test, ssh_diagnose) use StrictHostKeyChecking=no for their probe commands. Those probes only run echo SSH_OK — no credentials or data pass through — so the relaxed setting is safe for connectivity testing. Real operations always go through the hostVerifier.
ssh_exec and ssh_multi_exec accept free-form shell commands from the agent. For security-conscious deployments, you can restrict which commands run via two env vars, each accepting a comma-separated list of regex patterns:
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST — if set, the command must match at least one pattern, else it's blocked.
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_BLACKLIST — if set, the command must not match any pattern, else it's blocked.
When both are set, the command must pass both checks (whitelist first, then blacklist). When neither is set (the default), all commands are allowed.
Patterns are JavaScript regexes. Use ^ and $ for anchored matches; otherwise patterns are treated as substring matches. Commas are the delimiter, so a literal comma in a pattern needs to be expressed as \x2c or via a character class.
# Read-only allowlist: only ls / df / cat / find / tail
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST="^ls( .*)?,^df( .*)?,^cat ,^find ,^tail "
# Block destructive ops even if your agent goes off-script
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_BLACKLIST="^rm ,^shutdown,^reboot,^mkfs,^dd if=,>\s*/dev/"Blocked commands surface as a clear error mentioning which pattern (or which env var) rejected the call, so the agent can adapt rather than guess. Policy is enforced before the SSH connection opens — no remote process is started for a blocked command.
The structured higher-level tools (ssh_find, ssh_tail, ssh_service_status, SFTP ops) are exempt from policy. They build commands from typed parameters, so a tight ^ls whitelist would otherwise force you to allow ^find , ^tail , ^systemctl just to keep those tools working — defeating the point of a tight whitelist.
ssh_exec's env parameterWhen ssh_exec is called with env: { KEY: "value" }, the values are injected as a KEY='value' ... shell prefix before the command (see the ssh_exec description). Policy is checked against the full prefixed command, not the bare command argument. That's the safer ordering at the protocol layer — but it means whitelist patterns need to anticipate the prefix and must be anchored, not substring matches:
# WRONG -- blocks any ssh_exec call that uses `env`, because the final command
# starts with `KEY='value' ` and never matches `^ls`.
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST="^ls "
# RIGHT -- allow zero or more `KEY='value' ` prefixes before the real command.
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST="^([A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_]*='[^']*' )*ls( |$)"Avoid substring-match patterns like ls if you're worried about a hostile agent. An agent could pass env: { ATTACK: " ls " } to make the final command ATTACK=' ls ' rm -rf /, which matches a substring ls and bypasses the whitelist. Anchored patterns of the form above don't have this weakness because they require the real command name to follow the env-prefix block, not appear inside a quoted env value.
Blacklists need the same care. ^rm blocks a bare rm call, but doesn't block FOO='bar' rm. Use the same env-prefix-tolerant anchor:
SSH_MCP_COMMAND_BLACKLIST="^([A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_]*='[^']*' )*rm( |$)"If you don't trust the agent's env values at all, the simplest mitigation is to leave env unused in your client config and pass everything through the command string yourself.
On Windows, ssh-mcp detects the OpenSSH Authentication Agent service automatically (via the \\.\pipe\openssh-ssh-agent named pipe). No SSH_AUTH_SOCK needed — just make sure the OpenSSH agent service is running.
The published npm command runs the bundled Node entrypoint directly for compatibility with restricted serverless MCP hosts such as ModelScope.
All remote operations accept connection parameters:
Parameter | Description | Default |
| SSH hostname or IP (required) | — |
| SSH port | From SSH config or |
| SSH username | From SSH config or current user |
| Path to SSH private key | Auto-detect |
| Alias configured as a server-only | — |
Auth resolution order: ssh-mcp picks the first match from this list and does not fall through to later entries — this makes the auth method deterministic and predictable.
Explicit privateKeyPath
Password resolved from credential_id
ssh-agent (SSH_AUTH_SOCK on Unix, \\.\pipe\openssh-ssh-agent on Windows)
Identity files from ~/.ssh/config for the host
Default key paths (~/.ssh/id_ed25519, id_rsa, id_ecdsa)
Real passwords are never MCP tool parameters. Configure one ordinary environment variable
per credential on the MCP server, then let the agent select host, port, username, and
credential_id dynamically. IDs are uppercased and non-alphanumeric characters become
underscores:
SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1=password1
SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH2=password2
SSH_CREDENTIAL_ABC_TEST=password3{
"host": "bore.pub",
"port": 45201,
"username": "root",
"credential_id": "ssh1",
"command": "hostname"
}If credential_id is omitted, key and ssh-agent authentication continue to work. An unknown
alias fails without including any configured password in the error message.
For backward compatibility, SSH_CREDENTIALS_JSON remains available as a fallback. A matching
SSH_CREDENTIAL_<ID> variable always takes precedence, so platforms such as ModelScope do not
need to preserve or escape JSON environment-variable values.
Agent calls ssh_git_check → "Permission denied. Your SSH key is not registered with github.com."
Agent calls ssh_key_list → finds id_ed25519 exists but is not loaded
Agent calls ssh_key_load("~/.ssh/id_ed25519") → "Key loaded"
Agent calls ssh_git_check → "Git SSH authentication to github.com succeeded as username"
Agent runs git pull → worksAgent calls ssh_exec on server → error: "Host key verification failed"
(auto-diagnostics included in error: "Fix with ssh_known_hosts_fix")
Agent calls ssh_known_hosts_fix("my-server") → "Host key refreshed"
Agent calls ssh_exec → worksAgent calls ssh_test("new-server") → "Connection refused at new-server:22"
Agent calls ssh_diagnose("new-server") → full report showing agent running, keys loaded, but host unreachable
Agent reports: "SSH server isn't running on new-server or port 22 is blocked"import { connect, exec, diagnose, ensureAgent, listSshKeys, checkGitSsh, ConnectionPool } from '@txcxgzs/ssh-mcp';
// Fix SSH environment
const agent = ensureAgent();
console.log(agent.message);
// Check git access
const git = checkGitSsh('github.com');
console.log(git.message);
// List available keys
const keys = listSshKeys();
for (const key of keys) {
console.log(`${key.name} (${key.type}) - ${key.loadedInAgent ? 'loaded' : 'not loaded'}`);
}
// Run a remote command (one-off)
const client = await connect({ host: 'my-server', username: 'deploy' });
const result = await exec(client, 'uptime');
console.log(result.stdout);
client.end();
// Run multiple commands with connection pooling
const pool = new ConnectionPool();
await pool.withConnection({ host: 'my-server' }, async (client) => {
const r1 = await exec(client, 'uptime');
console.log(r1.stdout);
});
// Connection stays open for 60s — next call reuses it
await pool.withConnection({ host: 'my-server' }, async (client) => {
const r2 = await exec(client, 'df -h');
console.log(r2.stdout);
});
pool.drain(); // close all connections when done
// Diagnose issues
const report = diagnose('my-server');
console.log(report.overall); // "ok" | "warning" | "error"
for (const check of report.checks) {
console.log(`[${check.status}] ${check.name}: ${check.message}`);
}Node.js 18+
SSH client installed (for diagnostics and environment management)
MIT
Ensure ssh-agent is running and reachable. Starts a new agent if needed and sets environment variables so subsequent SSH operations work. Use this FIRST when SSH operations fail with agent-related errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it starts a new agent if needed and sets environment variables, which is the core behavior. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., environment persistence, failure handling, or whether it modifies the current shell or system-wide settings). This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Ensure ssh-agent is running and reachable'), followed by a concise explanation and usage trigger. No wasted words; every sentence adds necessary information.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. It explains the action (starting agent, setting env vars) and the trigger condition. There are no missing details that an agent would need to correctly select and call this tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail (none needed), and the schema already has full coverage with an empty properties object. No additional semantic clarification is required.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: ensuring ssh-agent is running and reachable, starting a new agent if needed, and setting environment variables. The verb 'ensure' and resource 'ssh-agent' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on file operations, execution, or diagnostics.
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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this FIRST when SSH operations fail with agent-related errors.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., other diagnostics).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve the effective SSH configuration for a host. Shows hostname, user, port, identity files, proxy settings, and all other options from ~/.ssh/config. Use this to understand how SSH will connect to a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'Resolve' and 'Shows' strongly imply a read-only operation with no side effects, and it specifies the data source (~/.ssh/config). It does not explicitly state that it avoids network connections or modifications, but the read-only nature is clear enough for an agent to infer safety.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary function and output details, while the second gives direct usage guidance. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns (including the catch-all 'all other options'), and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description's enumeration of output fields sufficiently informs the agent of expected results.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'host' parameter as an SSH hostname or IP address (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 precise verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('effective SSH configuration for a host'), listing the exact output fields (hostname, user, port, identity files, proxy settings). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ssh_exec (execution) and ssh_read_file (file access), leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to understand how SSH will connect to a host.' It provides the context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. However, by describing the tool's purpose as configuration resolution, it implicitly steers agents away from execution or file transfer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a file or empty directory on a remote host via SFTP. Auto-detects the path type and calls the right SFTP op (unlink for files/symlinks, rmdir for empty dirs). Recursive directory delete is intentionally NOT supported -- for that, use ssh_exec with rm -rf explicitly so the destructive intent is visible in the tool trace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path of the file or empty directory to delete. Must start with /. | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is transparent about the operation's side effects, auto-detection logic, the specific SFTP ops used (unlink/rmdir), and the non-recursive limitation. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements or exact failure behavior, but for a destructive tool it is unusually explicit about what happens and what does not.
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?
Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the mechanics in one clause, and the third gives the necessary alternative and rationale. The critical scoping constraint (non-recursive) is front-loaded and the rationale for the alternative is clearly articulated.
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?
The description covers what the tool does, its limitations, and the recommended alternative, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It does not describe the return value or failure output, but since the tool is simple and no output schema exists, this is a minor omission rather than a usability gap.
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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the path refers to a file or empty directory and that deletion is non-recursive. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without adding significant extra meaning.
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 states a precise verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a file or empty directory on a remote host via SFTP'), and defines the scope of supported targets (files, symlinks, empty dirs). It also distinguishes itself from ssh_exec for recursive deletes, preventing confusion among the many SSH siblings.
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?
Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Recursive directory delete is intentionally NOT supported') and names the exact alternative to use instead ('use ssh_exec with rm -rf explicitly'). This gives the agent both a clear trigger condition and a fallback path with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Diagnose SSH connectivity issues. Checks ssh-agent status, loaded keys, known_hosts, SSH config, and attempts a test connection. Use this BEFORE attempting SSH operations if you suspect connectivity issues, or AFTER a failed SSH operation to understand why it failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behaviors—checking agent state, keys, known_hosts, config, and attempting a connection. However, it does not state whether the test connection or diagnostics have side effects, return values, or timeouts, which matters for an unannotated diagnostic tool.
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 sentences deliver purpose, key behaviors, and usage timing without wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.
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 moderately complex diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, checks performed, and usage timing. A small gap is the lack of any detail about results or next-step actions, but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (host and port) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the connection target, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('SSH connectivity issues'), and enumerates concrete checks: ssh-agent status, loaded keys, known_hosts, SSH config, and a test connection. This is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the closely related ssh_test tool.
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?
Provides explicit timing guidance: use it BEFORE SSH operations if issues are suspected, or AFTER a failed SSH operation to understand failure. This is clear context for when to choose the tool, though it does not name or exclude sibling tools like ssh_test or ssh_known_hosts_fix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Download a file from a remote host to local filesystem via SFTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| localPath | Yes | Local path to save the downloaded file | |
| remotePath | Yes | Absolute path to the remote file. Must start with /. | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic operation and does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing local files, handling missing remote files, permission issues, or what the return value indicates. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately informative, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
The description, combined with the fully detailed schema, is sufficient for an agent to perform a basic file download. It covers the core operation and all parameters are explained. However, it lacks explicit mention of output/return behavior and edge cases, though these are not critical for a simple download operation. This is slightly above average completeness.
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?
The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Since the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., host, remotePath), the description does not enhance understanding. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action (download), the object (a file), the direction (from remote to local), and the method (SFTP). This unambiguous purpose differentiates it from siblings like ssh_upload (which does the opposite) and ssh_read_file (which does not save locally).
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 implies usage for transferring a remote file to the local filesystem, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., ssh_read_file for viewing content) or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear from context but not explicit, so it falls at the implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a command on a remote host via SSH. The command is interpreted by the remote login shell — pipes, redirects, globs, and other shell metacharacters work as expected. Returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. Use env to set environment variables for this call without modifying the command string. Subject to SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST / SSH_MCP_COMMAND_BLACKLIST if configured (policy is checked against the env-prefixed command).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | Environment variables to set for this command. Injected as a `KEY='value' ...` prefix; works on any sshd regardless of AcceptEnv config. Values are POSIX-single-quoted, so any byte is safe. | |
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| command | Yes | Shell command to execute on the remote host (interpreted by the remote login shell) | |
| timeout | No | Command timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses policy checks (whitelist/blacklist) and warns against passing real passwords for credential_id. It does not explicitly mention potential side effects of command execution, but that is inherent to the tool's purpose.
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?
The description is well-structured and concise, covering the main purpose, shell interpretation, return values, environment handling, and policy checks in a clear sequence without unnecessary fluff.
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?
Given the complexity of command execution, the description covers essential aspects: return format, policy restrictions, environment handling, and security warnings. It does not need to explain timeouts or username since those are in the schema. The absence of an output schema is compensated by stating what is returned.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds a helpful note about using env without modifying the command string, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 4.
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 clearly states the tool executes a command on a remote host via SSH, distinguishing it from file-oriented siblings. It specifies shell interpretation and return of stdout/stderr/exit code, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
While the description clarifies that this tool executes commands (as opposed to file operations like ssh_read_file), it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other command-related siblings like ssh_multi_exec. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for files on a remote host. Wraps the find command with structured parameters so you don't have to construct find syntax manually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| name | No | Filename pattern with wildcards (e.g. '*.log', 'config.*') | |
| path | Yes | Directory to search in (e.g. /var/log, /home/user) | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| type | No | File type: f=file, d=directory, l=symlink | |
| newer | No | Reference file path -- find matches files modified more recently than this file | |
| maxsize | No | Maximum file size (e.g. '10M', '500k') | |
| minsize | No | Minimum file size (e.g. '1M', '100k') | |
| timeout | No | Command timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) | |
| maxdepth | No | Maximum directory depth to search | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it wraps find, but doesn't disclose that it's a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any side effects (e.g., permission errors, handling of no matches). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. It's appropriately concise, though it could have included more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.
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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It leaves out crucial context such as return format, error behavior, timeout handling, authentication nuances, and the exact semantics of options like maxdepth or newer. An agent would need to make many assumptions.
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 coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond a generic reference to 'structured parameters'. It doesn't clarify unusual parameters like newer or the size constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states it searches for files on a remote host, which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes it wraps the find command, giving a concrete conceptual anchor. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_ls, though the 'search' wording implies a find-like operation.
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 explains the motivation—avoiding manual find syntax—which gives a reason to use it. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ssh_exec for ad-hoc commands or ssh_ls for simple directory listings. There's no mention of when not to use it, leaving the decision partly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Test Git-over-SSH authentication to a hosting provider (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, etc). Verifies your SSH key is registered and working. Use this when git clone/pull/push fails with SSH errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Git hosting hostname (default: "github.com") | |
| user | No | SSH user for the git host (default: "git") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that it verifies SSH key registration and working auth, which implies a read-only diagnostic action. However, it doesn't disclose expected outcomes, error behaviors, or any side effects (like network calls) beyond the implied test. Adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects that it conveys the core purpose without going into behavioral detail.
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?
The description is two sentences, both highly informative and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool's function, the second gives a concrete usage scenario. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema info, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what it tests and when to use it. It doesn't mention that it only performs the SSH handshake (not full Git operations) or that the agent must have a key loaded—but those are covered by sibling tools (e.g., ssh_agent_ensure) and are reasonable to omit. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in the described context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (host and user), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add extra meaning to these parameters, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no significant parameter-related value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('Git-over-SSH authentication'), and names a clear scope (hosting providers like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ssh_test (generic connectivity) or ssh_known_hosts_fix (host key issues), so an agent can quickly tell what this tool is for.
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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when git clone/pull/push fails with SSH errors.' This provides a clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the trigger is specific enough to guide selection among the many ssh siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all SSH private keys in ~/.ssh/ with their type, fingerprint, and whether they are loaded in the agent. Use this to find which keys are available and which ones need to be loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states what the tool returns (type, fingerprint, loaded status), making its behavior transparent. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the action 'list' and absence of side effects imply safety. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, which it meets adequately.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences), front-loads the primary action and output details, and includes a purposeful usage hint. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the returned fields. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., empty key directory) or error conditions, but for a simple listing tool, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and the schema aligns with this. No further explanation is needed.
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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('SSH private keys in ~/.ssh/') with clear attributes (type, fingerprint, loaded status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_key_load and ssh_agent_ensure by focusing solely on enumeration.
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 provides a clear use case: 'find which keys are available and which ones need to be loaded.' It implies when to use this tool (before loading keys) but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for loading or modifying keys). Still, the guidance is actionable and contextually relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load an SSH private key into the running agent. Ensures the agent is running first. Use this after ssh_key_list shows a key that is not loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyPath | Yes | Path to the SSH private key to load (e.g. ~/.ssh/id_ed25519) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by noting 'Ensures the agent is running first', but it does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or permission needs. Minimum viable for a simple load operation.
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 sentences, both earning their place. The main action is front-loaded, the prerequisite and usage condition are stated succinctly, with no filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description provides enough to invoke correctly: what it does, a key prerequisite, and the condition for use. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning return values or error scenarios, but these are minor for this operation.
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% for the single parameter keyPath, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Load an SSH private key'), the target ('into the running agent'), and differentiates from siblings by referencing ssh_key_list. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly provides a condition for use ('after ssh_key_list shows a key that is not loaded'), but does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling ssh_agent_ensure, which also handles agent startup. Lacks explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a stale host key from known_hosts and re-scan the host to add the current key. Use this when you see 'Host key verification failed' errors, typically after a server has been recreated or reprovisioned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses the mutating behavior: removal of a stale key followed by a re-scan to add the current key. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the action sequence and trigger, although it doesn't mention the affected known_hosts path or side effects.
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 brief sentences: the first describes the action, the second the trigger. No waste and front-loaded with the primary behavior.
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?
Adequate for a two-parameter tool with no output schema: an agent knows what it does and when to invoke it. It could note that this modifies the local user's known_hosts file, but the action is clear from the phrase 'remove a stale host key from known_hosts'.
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 coverage is 100%, with host and port each described. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
States a specific sequence (remove stale key, re-scan host) on a specific resource (known_hosts), and explicitly names the error condition it addresses. This differentiates it from sibling ssh tools that execute, read, or list remote files.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: upon 'Host key verification failed' errors after server recreate/reprovision. Does not name alternatives or exclude cases such as using ssh_diagnose for broader connectivity checks, so one point off.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List files in a directory on a remote host via SFTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the remote directory. Must start with /. | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation uses SFTP but says nothing about return format (e.g., simple filenames vs. detailed info), whether hidden files are included, how errors like permission denied are handled, or whether it follows symlinks. This significant gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, effective sentence that conveys the core action and transport method with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it exemplary in conciseness.
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?
The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic action and leaves out critical details such as the expected output shape (is it just names or also metadata?), the behavior for non-existent paths, and any permission or authentication requirements beyond the schema's parameter notes. Given these gaps, the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool with full confidence.
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%, so all six parameters (host, path, port, username, credential_id, privateKeyPath) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the SFTP context, which is marginal. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 'List' and a clear resource 'files in a directory on a remote host', and specifies the method 'via SFTP'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_read_file (reads file content) and ssh_stat (checks file metadata). The purpose is immediately clear.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to list directory contents on a remote host), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ssh_exec (which could run 'ls') or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implicitly clear but not explicitly differentiated from other SSH tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a directory on a remote host via SFTP. Set recursive: true to create parent directories as needed (like mkdir -p). Existing intermediate dirs are tolerated; an existing leaf path is still an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path of the directory to create | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| recursive | No | Create parent directories as needed (default: false). Like `mkdir -p`. | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious mkdir -p semantics clearly: existing intermediate directories are tolerated while an existing leaf path remains an error. It could also mention authentication expectations or result/error reporting, but the most important behavioral nuances are covered.
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 focused sentences earn their place: the core operation comes first, and the second sentence explains the one flag that materially changes behavior. The code-style formatting is precise and the description contains no filler.
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?
The core operation, the important flag, and the key error semantics are all present, and the schema fully covers every parameter. The description could be more explicit about which authentication path to use or what the success/error return looks like, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with current information.
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?
The schema already documents all seven parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the recursive behavior beyond the schema, especially the tolerated-intermediate-dirs vs valid-leaf distinction. This pushes it slightly above baseline.
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 starts with a specific action and resource: create a directory on a remote host via SFTP. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read, write, list, and transfer tools without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.
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 gives practical guidance for the recursive flag and explains important edge-case behavior, which implies the intended use. However, it never explicitly compares this to alternatives such as using ssh_exec for mkdir, so the when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a command on multiple remote hosts in parallel. Returns results per host. Use this instead of calling ssh_exec multiple times — it's faster and shows results side by side. Subject to SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST / SSH_MCP_COMMAND_BLACKLIST if configured (policy is checked once before fan-out).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| hosts | Yes | List of SSH hostnames or IPs | |
| command | Yes | Shell command to execute on all hosts | |
| timeout | No | Command timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently surfaces parallel execution, the policy whitelist/blacklist check performed once, and the command execution nature. It does not warn about potential destructive side effects of the executed command itself, but this is inherent to a command execution tool and somewhat self-evident; the policy note is a valuable disclosure.
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?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the usage guidance, and the policy caveat. Information is front-loaded and easily scannable with no redundancy or filler.
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?
With 7 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema present, the description covers the essential decision points: what it does, when to use it over the alternative, and the policy constraint. Could elaborate on result structure, but 'results per host' suffices for a command fan-out tool. Comprehensive enough for selection and invocation.
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%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the JSON schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the command and hosts concepts. Per guidelines, this lands at the baseline of 3.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Execute' with resource 'command on multiple remote hosts in parallel', clearly distinguishing from sibling ssh_exec that targets a single host. The alternative is explicitly named once, resolving ambiguity without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool 'instead of calling ssh_exec multiple times,' and gives a concrete rationale (faster, side-by-side results). This directly aids tool selection among the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read a file from a remote host via SFTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the remote file. Must start with /. | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, or potential failure modes. It only states the operation without indicating whether the file content is returned or any other behavioral details.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description lacks important contextual details such as the output format (e.g., file content) and any limitations (e.g., textual vs binary, encoding). It does not explain the behavior in enough depth for a user to fully understand the tool's usage without additional inference.
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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all parameters (host, path, port, username, credential_id, privateKeyPath), so coverage is high. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('a file from a remote host via SFTP'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_write_file or ssh_download.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_download or ssh_cat. It lacks context on criteria for choosing this over similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the status of a systemd service on a remote host. Returns whether it's active, its PID, uptime, and description. Use this instead of ssh_exec with systemctl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| service | Yes | Systemd service name (e.g. nginx, sshd, docker) | |
| timeout | No | Command timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. It mentions using systemctl indirectly but lacks details on potential errors (e.g., service not found) or the need for sudo. Given no annotations, this is a moderate level of transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise and to the point. It states purpose, return content, and usage guidance without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence carries meaningful information, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's function and return fields, and it provides a usage note regarding alternatives. It does not explain edge cases like missing services or privilege requirements, but for a simple status check, this is largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the return description.
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?
All parameters are described in the schema with adequate detail, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The schema covers host, service, timeout, etc., and the tool description does not clarify or enhance these. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: checking the status of a systemd service on a remote host. It specifies the return value (active state, PID, uptime, description) and differentiates it from related tools like ssh_exec. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool instead of ssh_exec with systemctl, providing a direct alternative and a clear condition for selection. This guides the agent on when to choose this tool over others in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get metadata for a file or directory on a remote host via SFTP. Returns size, permissions (octal), uid/gid, mtime/atime, and type flags (isFile, isDirectory, isSymbolicLink). Use this instead of parsing ls -la output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the remote file or directory. Must start with /. | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, nor does it describe error handling, authentication failures, or path existence checks. The description is honest about what it does but lacks detail on edge cases.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences: one stating the primary function and return fields, and a second providing a practical comparison against parsing `ls -la`. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the returned metadata fields. It also provides a usage context (instead of parsing `ls -la`). However, it does not mention error scenarios (e.g., file not found), symlink behavior, or whether authentication is required beyond the parameters, leaving minor gaps in completeness.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters, covering host, path, port, username, credential_id, and privateKeyPath. The description adds useful constraints like 'Must start with /' for path and 'Never pass a real password here' for credential_id, enhancing clarity beyond basic schema definitions.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves metadata for a file or directory on a remote host via SFTP, and it specifically names the returned fields (size, permissions, uid/gid, mtime/atime, type flags). It also distinguishes itself from alternative approaches by advising against parsing `ls -la` output, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool instead of parsing `ls -la` output, giving a clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like ssh_ls or ssh_read_file, but the guidance is sufficient for a typical use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the last N lines of a file on a remote host, optionally filtering by a grep pattern. Use this for reading log files instead of ssh_exec with manual tail/grep commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grep | No | Case-insensitive pattern to filter lines | |
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the file to tail | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| lines | No | Number of lines to read from the end (default: 100). Must be a positive integer. | |
| timeout | No | Command timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'read' and the tail/grep semantics imply a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose SSH authentication expectations (credential_id vs privateKeyPath vs username), failure behavior on missing files or unreachable hosts, or the fact that all non-required params have defaults. The schema partially compensates by documenting each parameter, including the security warning on credential_id.
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 sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second gives the recommended use case and the alternative to avoid. The core purpose is front-loaded and every clause 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 moderately complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and primary use case while the schema thoroughly documents all parameters, including secure handling of credential_id. It does not hint at the return format since no output schema exists, but that gap is minor for a straightforward read-only tail operation.
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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the mapping of 'last N lines' to the lines parameter and 'grep pattern' to the grep parameter, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('file on a remote host'), and quantifies the behavior ('last N lines' with optional 'grep pattern' filtering). It explicitly differentiates itself from ssh_exec by noting it should be used 'instead of ssh_exec with manual tail/grep commands,' so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 second sentence provides actionable context: use this for 'reading log files' and names the alternative to avoid ('ssh_exec with manual tail/grep commands'). However, it does not state exclusions such as whole-file reads (which would route to ssh_read_file) or live-following scenarios, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Quick connectivity test to an SSH host. Reports success/failure with timing and actionable error details. Lighter and faster than ssh_diagnose — use this for a quick check before running operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports success/failure with timing and actionable error details, which informs the agent about the return type and content. It does not mention authentication or potential side effects, but 'test' implies a non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare name, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then immediately state the differentiation and usage context. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (success/failure, timing, error details), and when to use it. It lacks precise output formatting details, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result. This is nearly complete for such a lightweight tool.
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?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions (host and port). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it does not explain expected formats, defaults, or how the port is used beyond the schema's basic default of 22. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value here.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a quick connectivity test to an SSH host, reporting success/failure with timing and error details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ssh_diagnose by being lighter and faster, so an agent can easily tell them apart without examining schemas.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('use this for a quick check before running operations') and contrasts it with ssh_diagnose ('lighter and faster'). This gives clear context and implies when not to use it (when a deeper diagnostic is needed). The guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upload a local file to a remote host via SFTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| localPath | Yes | Path to the local file to upload | |
| remotePath | Yes | Absolute path on the remote host. Must start with /. | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions SFTP, which is useful, but it does not reveal authentication requirements, whether remote directories are created, overwrite behavior, or any side effects of the transfer.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and protocol efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
Despite a rich 7-parameter schema, the description gives only minimal context. It omits important operational details such as credential handling, required authentication method, transfer behavior, and expected output, which are not covered elsewhere since no output schema or annotations exist.
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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond mapping local file to localPath and remote host to remotePath, which is expected given the schema already explains each parameter.
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 clearly states a specific action (Upload), the object (a local file), and destination (remote host via SFTP). It is unambiguous and self-contained, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ssh_write_file or ssh_download.
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 implies the tool is for transferring a local file to a remote host, which conveys basic usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as ssh_write_file for writing remote content directly, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Write content to a file on a remote host via SFTP. Creates or overwrites the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH hostname or IP address | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the remote file. Must start with /. | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| content | Yes | File content to write | |
| username | No | SSH username (default: current user) | |
| credential_id | No | Alias of an SSH password configured only on the MCP server (for example, ssh1 resolves to SSH_CREDENTIAL_SSH1). Never pass a real password here. | |
| privateKeyPath | No | Path to SSH private key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly notes that the tool creates or overwrites the file, a key behavioral trait. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the overwrite behavior is clearly disclosed.
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?
The description is extremely concise, using only two sentences to convey the essential information without unnecessary words.
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 write operation, the description is complete enough. It does not explicitly mention return values, but given no output schema and the basic nature, this is acceptable. The overwrite behavior is the key contextual detail and is present.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool writes a file via SFTP, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read, upload, and execute.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over ssh_upload or ssh_exec). The description lacks any mention of use cases or cautions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.14.3ssh_agent_ensuressh_config_lookupssh_deletessh_diagnosessh_downloadssh_execssh_findssh_git_checkssh_key_listssh_key_loadssh_known_hosts_fixssh_lsssh_mkdirssh_multi_execssh_read_filessh_service_statusssh_statssh_tailssh_testssh_uploadssh_write_fileEvery tool has a clearly defined purpose: execution, file transfer, metadata, diagnostics, key/agent management, and specialized helpers like git_check and service_status. Potential overlaps (e.g., ssh_test vs ssh_diagnose) are explicitly differentiated by speed and depth.
All tools share the ssh_ prefix and mostly follow a verb-noun pattern (ssh_read_file, ssh_write_file, ssh_upload, ssh_mkdir). A few deviate slightly, like ssh_known_hosts_fix and ssh_service_status, but the overall convention remains predictable.
21 tools is somewhat high for most servers, but the SSH domain genuinely spans execution, SFTP, key management, agent management, diagnostics, and networking. Each tool appears to justify its inclusion, though a few edge-case utilities feel additive.
The toolset covers the core lifecycle of SSH operations: connection, command exec, file transfer, diagnostics, key loading, and service status checking. Minor gaps exist, such as no remote file move/rename or permission change tool, but these are likely outside the primary scope because ssh_exec can handle them.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Let AI operate servers without SSH. Choose actions, approve risky changes, and audit every step.
Scoped, audited SSH exec, sessions, and SFTP on your saved servers without exposing credentials
Operate Linux, macOS and Windows from your LLM. Every action runs through an auditable allowlist.
Provides capabilities that let LLM agents perform a range of infrastructure management tasks.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/txcxgzs/ssh-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
