Skip to main content
Glama
safe-ssh-mcp

safe-ssh-mcp

by Areso

get_lockfiles

Finds dependency lockfiles on a remote Linux host over SSH and lists them with size and mtime, skipping vendor, .git, and virtualenv directories; optionally print full file contents.

Instructions

Finds dependency lockfiles under the given absolute app paths on a remote Linux host via SSH: composer.lock (PHP), package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml (Node.js), requirements*.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, Pipfile.lock (Python), Gemfile.lock (Ruby), go.sum (Go) and Cargo.lock (Rust). Skips node_modules, vendor, .git, venv and .venv directories. Lists the files found with size and mtime (ls -l). With include_contents=True prints the files instead (the first 20 found), each after a '===== ( bytes) =====' line. A file is always printed WHOLE or not at all, never cut: a file over 5 MB, or one that would take the output over 10 MB in total, gets a '===== (skipped: ...) =====' line instead. The output can be several MB - call without include_contents first to see the sizes, then narrow abs_paths to the application you need.

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>",
      "abs_paths": "<abs_paths>"
    },
    "name": "get_lockfiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
portNo
userYes
timeoutNo
key_pathNo
passwordNo
abs_pathsYes
max_depthNo
include_contentsNo
accept_new_hostkeyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.16

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, and it does disclose a lot: directory exclusions (node_modules, vendor, .git, venv, .venv), that listing is an 'ls -l' with size and mtime, that include_contents prints at most the first 20 files, and the 5 MB per-file / 10 MB total truncation policy with whole-or-nothing semantics. However, security- and behavior-relevant parameters go unmentioned: the accept_new_hostkey flag (an SSH host-key trust decision), key_path vs password auth, and timeout are never discussed, so an agent cannot judge the trust or credential implications.

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?

Information is front-loaded: what it finds, where, what it skips, then how output behaves, then the recommended calling pattern. The file-type enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining the match set. A few parenthetical explanations could be trimmed, but nothing is padding.

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 described, yet the description still usefully explains the '===== <path> (skipped: ...) =====' framing and the 'ls -l' listing form. Against a 10-parameter remote-SSH tool, though, the missing max_depth recursion semantics and the unexplained host-key acceptance behavior leave real gaps an agent would need filled before calling it safely on unfamiliar hosts.

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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does — include_contents is explained thoroughly and abs_paths gains 'absolute' plus the 'app paths' notion. max_depth (default 4, controlling recursion depth), accept_new_hostkey, key_path, password, timeout, and port get no explanation at all, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Finds dependency lockfiles') plus the transport and scope ('under the given absolute app paths on a remote Linux host via SSH'), then enumerates exactly which files count (composer.lock, package-lock.json, go.sum, Cargo.lock, etc.). This makes it trivially distinguishable from the sibling inspection tools such as get_installed_packages or get_disk_usage.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: 'call without include_contents first to see the sizes, then narrow abs_paths to the application you need', which is real operational guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when another tool would be preferable, but within this tool the usage pattern is unambiguous.

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