mcp-server-ssh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sftp_stat

Retrieve POSIX metadata for a remote file or directory over SFTP to inspect permissions, ownership, size, and timestamps before file operations.

Instructions

获取远程文件或目录的 POSIX 详细元数据信息

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": {
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>"
    },
    "name": "sftp_stat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`remotePath`	Yes	待检查状态的远程路径
`connectionId`	No	目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.5Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取…信息' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing paths, symlink handling, or whether a connection must already be open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry the missing usage and behavioral context the tool needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. With no output schema and no annotations, it could have disclosed what metadata is returned and how failures surface, but it stops short.

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%, so both remotePath and connectionId (including its default-connection fallback) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, path-style, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (remote file or directory POSIX metadata), so an agent knows this retrieves metadata for a single path rather than listing contents. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the closest sibling, sftp_list_dir.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of sftp_list_dir or sftp_read_file, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active connection). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the 'file or directory' phrasing.

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