ssh-bridge-mcp

ssh_read_file

Retrieve remote file contents securely through SFTP by specifying session and path, with an optional byte cap.

Instructions

Read a text file from the remote host via SFTP.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`max_bytes`	No
`session_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation over SFTP and warns that the tool is for text files, but it does not explain behavior around max_bytes truncation or what happens with large or binary files.

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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short, though slightly too terse to cover important parameter behavior.

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 read tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, the purpose is clear enough to attempt a call. However, the lack of parameter explanations, especially max_bytes behavior and session_id provenance, leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not describe session_id, path, or max_bytes at all; path is only indirectly implied by 'read a text file', and max_bytes remains completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read', identifies the resource as 'text file from the remote host', and specifies the mechanism 'via SFTP'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ssh_write_file and ssh_exec.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to read a text file over SFTP. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for binary files, directory listings, or executing commands.

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

Deploy Server