safe-ssh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_libc_version

Collect the remote Linux host's C library implementation and version over SSH to identify glibc or musl and the distro package version for security checks.

Instructions

Collects C library implementation and version (glibc or musl) from a remote Linux host via SSH. Uses ldd --version; musl is detected by the presence of /lib/ld-musl-* loader. The last line, "package: ", is the distro package version (e.g. 2.39-0ubuntu8.9, 2.34-289.el9, 1.2.6-r3) that security data is keyed by; it is taken from dpkg, rpm or apk and is absent on other distros.

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>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "get_libc_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`port`	No
`user`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`key_path`	No
`password`	No
`accept_new_hostkey`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.16Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the detection method (ldd --version, /lib/ld-musl-* presence) and a caveat that the package line is absent on non-dpkg/rpm/apk distros, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about authentication requirements, failure modes (unreachable host, missing ldd), or whether anything is modified on the target.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. Each sentence adds information (mechanism, musl detection, package-line format, availability caveat). Slightly dense but no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though the description usefully explains the final package line anyway. However, for a 7-parameter SSH tool with zero annotation coverage, the complete silence on connection and authentication parameters leaves a meaningful gap an agent must close by reading the schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions host, user, port, timeout, key_path, password, or accept_new_hostkey; the SSH credential and host-key-trust parameters are entirely undocumented. Only the implicit fact that an SSH connection is made lets the agent infer anything about the parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: collects C library implementation and version (glibc or musl) from a remote Linux host via SSH. It also explains the exact collection mechanism, so the agent knows precisely what artifact is produced. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings such as get_distroname_version or get_kernel_version.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that the distro package version 'is what security data is keyed by' hints at vulnerability-matching scenarios, but the description never says when to choose this tool over get_distroname_version or get_installed_packages. No exclusions or prerequisites (SSH reachability, auth) are stated.

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

Deploy Server