Inspect remote files and directories over SSH to get type, size, permissions, modification time, and owner/group IDs.
Get metadata about a file or directory on a remote SSH host: type, size, permissions, modification time, owner/group ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | SSH config alias of the target host | |
| path | Yes | Path to inspect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It establishes that the operation targets a remote SSH host and what data comes back, but says nothing about failure modes (missing path, permission denied), symlink following, or whether the path is interpreted relative to the remote user's home.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists return fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.
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 no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the returned metadata fields. For a low-risk read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior and symlink semantics are unaddressed.
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% and both parameters are documented there (host as SSH config alias, path as the target). The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 verb (get) and resource (metadata about a file or directory on a remote SSH host), then enumerates exactly what is returned: type, size, permissions, mtime, owner/group ids. This field list implicitly separates it from ssh_read_file (contents) and ssh_list_directory (listing), but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is for inspecting a single remote path's metadata. There is no statement of when to prefer it over ssh_list_directory or ssh_read_file, nor any prerequisites such as reachability of the host.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.