MCP SSH Agent

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.3.9
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: connectivity checking, file download/upload, host info retrieval, host listing, and command execution (both single and batch). The descriptions make it easy to differentiate between runRemoteCommand and runCommandBatch, and there is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., checkConnectivity, downloadFile, uploadFile), but there are minor deviations like runRemoteCommand (which includes an adjective) and listKnownHosts (which uses an adjective). All names are camelCase, maintaining a readable style throughout.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for SSH operations, covering core functionalities like connection testing, file transfer, command execution, and host management. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for common SSH workflows: connectivity checks, file operations (upload/download), host information and listing, and command execution (both single and batch). There are no obvious gaps, and agents can perform typical SSH tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 10, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks SSH connectivity but doesn't describe what 'possible' means (e.g., success criteria like authentication, network reachability), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It avoids unnecessary details while conveying the essential action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SSH connectivity checks (involving network, authentication, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, success/failure conditions, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'hostAlias' documented as 'Alias or hostname of the SSH host'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema already provides adequate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('SSH connection to the host'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHostInfo' or 'listKnownHosts', which might also involve host connectivity checks, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing SSH credentials), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getHostInfo' for detailed host status or 'runRemoteCommand' for testing connectivity via command execution, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, error handling for missing files, file size limits, or overwrite behavior for local paths, which are critical for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/failure responses, security implications, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool involves SSH and file transfer, which is already inferred from the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Downloads') and resource ('a file from an SSH host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'uploadFile' or 'runRemoteCommand' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like SSH connectivity (covered by 'checkConnectivity') or contrast with 'uploadFile' for reverse operations, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns configuration details, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'all configuration details' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (SSH host configuration retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all configuration details' includes, potential return formats, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for the agent to infer behavior.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'hostAlias' clearly documented as 'Alias or hostname of the SSH host'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all configuration details for an SSH host'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listKnownHosts', which might also provide host-related information, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'getHostInfo' over 'listKnownHosts' or other SSH-related tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'sequentially' (execution order) but omits critical behavioral traits: error handling (e.g., stops on first failure?), permissions required, output format, timeout/rate limits, or side effects. For a tool executing shell commands on a remote host, this lack of disclosure is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, and every word ('executes', 'multiple', 'shell commands', 'sequentially', 'SSH host') contributes essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (remote command execution with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error handling, security implications, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('hostAlias' and 'commands'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'commands' are executed in sequence, which is minimal value. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('executes multiple shell commands') and target ('on an SSH host'), with 'sequentially' adding operational detail. It distinguishes from siblings like 'runRemoteCommand' (singular vs. batch) and 'checkConnectivity' (diagnostic vs. execution), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'uploadFile' is also SSH-related but different purpose).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH connectivity established), compare to 'runRemoteCommand' for single commands, or specify use cases like batch automation. Without such context, an agent might misuse it when a sibling tool is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal information. It states the action ('Uploads') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the SSH host is unreachable), file size limits, or whether it overwrites existing files at the remote path. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (file upload over SSH, a mutation operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective use in this 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (hostAlias, localPath, remotePath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Uploads') and the resource ('a local file to an SSH host'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'downloadFile' beyond the direction of file transfer, which would require mentioning the opposite operation for full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like SSH connectivity (implied by 'SSH host'), compare with siblings like 'downloadFile' for reverse operations, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate over other file-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions execution and a timeout tip, omitting how output is returned, whether the call is blocking, error handling, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a remote command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and a useful tip second. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives (e.g., stdout/stderr, exit code, errors), but it does not. It also fails to position the tool relative to its siblings, leaving the overall operational context incomplete for a command execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to increase timeout for long-running commands, providing actionable context beyond the schema's basic type and default info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes a shell command on an SSH host, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling runCommandBatch, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runCommandBatch. The only usage tip concerns increasing the timeout for long-running commands, which is a parameter adjustment, not a tool-selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the consolidation of multiple sources, prioritization logic, and the specific file paths involved. It doesn't mention potential issues like file permissions, missing files, or output format details, but provides solid operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data sources, and prioritization logic. Every element earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong context about what the tool does and how it operates. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or handling of edge cases, but it adequately covers the core functionality given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and data sources, which adds value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Returns a consolidated list') and resource ('all known SSH hosts'), with explicit prioritization rules (~/.ssh/config entries first, then ~/.ssh/known_hosts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getHostInfo' by focusing on listing rather than detailed information retrieval.
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 context through the prioritization rules, suggesting it's for retrieving SSH host configurations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getHostInfo' or 'checkConnectivity', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ssh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiondaDotCom/mcp-ssh/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiondaDotCom/mcp-ssh)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ssh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiondaDotCom/mcp-ssh/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiondaDotCom/mcp-ssh)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

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

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

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