Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-hostops

mcp-hostops

by RenFelyer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Host parameters

get_host
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve SSH connection details for a host alias from ~/.ssh/config, including hostname, user, port, and jump host.

Instructions

Parameters of a single host as ssh sees them: hostname, user, port, jump host.

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": {
      "alias": "<alias>"
    },
    "name": "get_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasYesAlias from ~/.ssh/config.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYes
userYes
aliasYes
hostnameYes
proxyjumpYesjump host alias; empty if the connection is direct

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is limited to enumerating the returned fields, which an output schema already provides; no error behavior or failure mode is mentioned.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the resource and its returned contents with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, a fully documented single parameter, and annotations covering safety, only a little is missing — notably what happens when the alias is unknown. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'alias' parameter is already described in the schema as coming from ~/.ssh/config. The description's phrase 'as ssh sees them' adds framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource ('a single host') and the exact contents it returns (hostname, user, port, jump host), which immediately separates it from the list_hosts/check_hosts siblings. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_hosts, check_hosts, or run. The alias-from-ssh-config context implies the lookup use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools