AgentsID Guard

Official

by AgentsID-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

ssh_run

Execute shell commands on remote hosts over SSH, with per-host permission enforcement and SSH key authentication.

Instructions

Run a command on a remote host via SSH. Permission scoped per host (ssh.hostname). Requires SSH keys configured.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes	Remote hostname or IP
`port`	No	SSH port (default: 22)
`user`	No	SSH user (default: root)
`command`	Yes	Command to execute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permission scoping and SSH key prerequisites, but does not mention behavior such as output handling, exit code propagation, or potential side effects of running arbitrary commands. This is useful context but incomplete for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: the first immediately states the core function, the second adds permissions and prerequisites. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and authorization, but omits return value/error behavior and does not address when to choose this over local shell execution. While not inadequate, it has clear gaps in context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The permission scoping note refers to the host parameter but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action (run a command) on a specific resource (remote host via SSH), and distinguishes itself from siblings like shell_run by specifying SSH and remote host. It also adds context about permission scoping, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (for remote SSH command execution) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like shell_run or git_run. It mentions prerequisites (SSH keys) and permission scoping but lacks direct comparison or exclusion of sibling tools.

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