en es ja ko zh

SSH MCP Server

Name: SSH MCP Server
Author: KinoThe-Kafkaesque

by KinoThe-Kafkaesque

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

SSH MCP サーバー

鍛冶屋のバッジ

SSH機能を提供するモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー実装。このサーバーは、MCPプロトコルを介した安全なリモートアクセスと実行を可能にします。

特徴

MCPプロトコルを使用したSSHサーバーの実装
データの永続性のためのSQLiteデータベース統合
型安全性と開発エクスペリエンスの向上を実現する TypeScript 実装

Related MCP server: Remote Command MCP Server

前提条件

Node.js（v16以上を推奨）
npm または yarn パッケージマネージャー
開発のためのTypeScriptの知識

インストール

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の SSH サーバーを自動的にインストールするには:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @KinoThe-Kafkaesque/ssh-mcp-server --client claude

手動インストール

リポジトリをクローンします。

git clone <repository-url>
cd ssh-server

依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

プロジェクトをビルドします。

npm run build

使用法

構成

サーバーはSSH認証情報を保存するためにSQLiteデータベース（ ssh.db ）を使用します。データベースファイルはサーバーの起動時に自動的に作成されます。

ツール

サーバーは次のツールを提供します。

ssh_exec

SSH 経由でコマンドを実行します。

入力パラメータ:

host : 接続先のホスト。(必須)
command : 実行するコマンド。(必須)
username : SSH接続に使用するユーザー名。(必須)
privateKeyPath : 秘密鍵ファイルへのパス。(必須)

使用例:

{
    "tool_name": "ssh_exec",
    "arguments": {
        "host": "example.com",
        "command": "ls -l",
        "username": "user",
        "privateKeyPath": "/path/to/private/key"
    }
}

注意: privateKeyPathは、秘密鍵ファイルへの有効なパスである必要があります。

資格情報の追加

新しい SSH 資格情報を追加します。

入力パラメータ:

name : 資格情報の名前。(必須)
host : 接続先のホスト。(必須)
username : SSH接続に使用するユーザー名。(必須)
privateKeyPath : 秘密鍵ファイルへのパス。(必須)

使用例:

{
    "tool_name": "add_credential",
    "arguments": {
        "name": "my_credential",
        "host": "example.com",
        "username": "user",
        "privateKeyPath": "/path/to/private/key"
    }
}

注意: privateKeyPathは、秘密鍵ファイルへの有効なパスである必要があります。

資格情報のリスト

保存されているすべての SSH 資格情報を一覧表示します。

入力パラメータ:

なし

使用例:

{
    "tool_name": "list_credentials",
    "arguments": {}
}

資格情報を削除する

保存された SSH 資格情報を削除します。

入力パラメータ:

name : 削除する資格情報の名前。(必須)

使用例:

{
    "tool_name": "remove_credential",
    "arguments": {
        "name": "my_credential"
    }
}

サーバーの起動

npm start

サーバーは設定されたポートで実行を開始します (デフォルト設定はソースコードで変更できます)。

プロジェクト構造

src/ - ソースコードディレクトリ
build/ - コンパイルされたJavaScript出力
node_modules/ - プロジェクトの依存関係

依存関係

@modelcontextprotocol/sdk : MCP プロトコルの実装
sqlite3 : SQLite データベースドライバー
typescript : TypeScript サポートの開発依存関係

発達

プロジェクトに変更を加えるには:

src/ディレクトリに変更を加えます
プロジェクトを再構築します。

npm run build

変更をテストするにはサーバーを起動します。

npm start

ライセンス

ISC

貢献

リポジトリをフォークする
機能ブランチを作成する
変更をコミットする
ブランチにプッシュする
新しいプルリクエストを作成する

Available Tools

5 tools

add_credentialC

Add a new SSH credential with private key file path

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`privateKeyPath`	Yes
`username`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it adds a credential but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this requires admin permissions, if it overwrites existing credentials, error handling (e.g., invalid file paths), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). It mentions 'private key file path' but not how it's stored or used. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 (a mutation tool for SSH credentials), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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. It only mentions 'private key file path', which maps to one of the four parameters (privateKeyPath). It doesn't explain the other parameters (host, name, username), their purposes, formats, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('Add') and resource ('SSH credential'), specifying it's for a new credential with a private key file path. It distinguishes from siblings like list_credentials (read) and remove_credential (delete), though it doesn't explicitly mention rsync_copy or ssh_exec. The purpose is specific but could be more detailed about what 'add' entails.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing private key file), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like ssh_exec (which might use credentials). The description implies usage for adding SSH credentials but lacks contextual advice.

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

list_credentialsB

List all stored SSH credentials

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about return format (e.g., list structure, credential details), pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that accesses sensitive data.

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 resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 listing credentials (sensitive data access) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., credential IDs, types, metadata), security implications, or how to handle the results, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It could be 5 if it explicitly stated 'no parameters required' but this is minor.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all stored SSH credentials'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_credentials' or 'search_credentials' if they existed, which prevents 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 like 'add_credential' or 'remove_credential'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

remove_credentialC

Remove a stored SSH credential

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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. It states the tool performs a removal operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is destructive, irreversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 single parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about this parameter, such as what 'name' refers to (e.g., credential identifier), its format, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('stored SSH credential'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'add_credential' or 'list_credentials', but the verb 'Remove' inherently differentiates it from those operations.

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 like 'add_credential' or 'list_credentials'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing credential to remove) or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

rsync_copyC

Copy files/directories between local and remote server via rsync

Name	Required	Description
`credentialName`	Yes	Name of the stored credential to use
`direction`	Yes	Direction of copy (toRemote or fromRemote)
`localPath`	Yes	Path on the local machine
`remotePath`	Yes	Path on the remote server

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. It mentions copying via rsync but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites files, handles symlinks, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This leaves significant gaps for a file operation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the core functionality.

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 file copying with rsync, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output format, which are essential for safe and effective use of this tool.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the need for paths and direction, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Copy files/directories') and the mechanism ('via rsync'), specifying both the resource (files/directories) and the scope (between local and remote server). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_exec, but the focus on copying distinguishes it from credential management tools.

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 like ssh_exec for other operations, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing stored credentials. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to choose it.

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

ssh_execC

Execute command over SSH using private key file path

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes
`host`	Yes
`privateKeyPath`	Yes
`username`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication mechanism but doesn't describe execution behavior (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous, timeout handling, error propagation, output capture, or security implications). For a potentially destructive remote execution tool, this 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 that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity level and gets straight to the point.

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 remote execution tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, how output is returned, error handling, security considerations, or typical use patterns. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description doesn't add any semantic information beyond what's implied by parameter names. It mentions 'private key file path' which aligns with the privateKeyPath parameter name but doesn't explain format expectations, path resolution, or relationships between parameters like host and username.

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 ('Execute command') and resource ('over SSH using private key file path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like rsync_copy or credential management tools, but it's specific enough to understand what this tool does.

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 like rsync_copy or when SSH execution is appropriate. It mentions the authentication method (private key file path) but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv1.0.0Apr 13, 2025
- First observedadd_credential
- First observedlist_credentials
- First observedremove_credential
- First observedrsync_copy
- First observedssh_exec

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:05 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: credential management (add, list, remove) is separate from remote operations (rsync, ssh_exec). The descriptions clearly differentiate between managing stored credentials and performing remote actions, eliminating any potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: add_credential, list_credentials, remove_credential, rsync_copy, ssh_exec. The naming is predictable and readable throughout, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for SSH operations. Each tool earns its place by covering essential functions: credential management (3 tools) and remote execution/copy (2 tools). This count is appropriate for the domain without being too thin or heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core SSH workflows: credential lifecycle (add, list, remove) and remote operations (execute, copy). A minor gap exists in credential updates (e.g., update_credential), but agents can work around this by removing and re-adding. Overall, the set provides good coverage for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
238
https://server.smithery.ai/@hithereiamaliff/mcp-nextcloud/mcp
Studex MCP ServerOAuth
io.github.itshivams
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
Developer Tools
1
https://studex.club/api/mcp
todo.vu AOAuth
io.github.mooball
Model Context Protocol server for todo.vu task management and time tracking.
Payments & Billing Project Management Workplace & Productivity
2
https://mcp.todo.vu/mcp
mcp COAuth
com.wix
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Developer Tools Content Management Systems App Automation
215
https://mcp.wix.com/mcp

Related MCP Servers

MCP SSH Server
Shell Access Command Line OS Automation
shaike1
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
A secure SSH server implementation for Model Context Protocol that enables remote command execution and file operations, supporting both password and key-based authentication.
Updated 2 years ago (2024-12-02 19:53 UTC)
58
MIT
Remote Command MCP Server
Shell Access Command Line OS Automation
deepsuthar496
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables remote execution of shell commands across different operating systems, automatically handling platform-specific differences between Windows and Unix-like systems.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-25 06:42 UTC)
1
MIT
SSH MCP Server
Shell Access Command Line
mfangtao
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
A server that enables remote command execution over SSH through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), supporting both password and private key authentication.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-26 06:12 UTC)
1
19 npm
2
MIT
SSH MCP Server
Shell Access Code Execution
vilasone455
F
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
A local Model Context Protocol server that allows LLMs to securely execute shell commands on remote Linux and Windows systems via SSH connections.
Updated a year ago (2025-05-27 06:59 UTC)
6
4 npm
2
-

SSH MCP サーバー

特徴

前提条件

インストール

Smithery経由でインストール

手動インストール

使用法

構成

ツール

ssh_exec

資格情報の追加

資格情報のリスト

資格情報を削除する

サーバーの起動

プロジェクト構造

依存関係

発達

ライセンス

貢献

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches