Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-ssh

mcp-server-ssh

by atengk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sftp_upload

Upload a local file from the host machine to an absolute destination path on a remote SSH host, with an optional connection identifier to pick the target server.

Instructions

将宿主机本地文件快速上传至远程目标主机

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": {
      "localPath": "<localPath>",
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>"
    },
    "name": "sftp_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localPathYes宿主机本地文件的绝对路径
remotePathYes上传到远程主机的绝对目标路径
connectionIdNo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.

  1. First observedv1.2.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 claims a 'fast' upload but says nothing about overwrite behavior on an existing remote file, required permissions, connection requirements (connectionId defaults to the current connection), or how failures are reported — all material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the source-to-destination framing is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it forgoes any useful elaboration.

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 3-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is just barely sufficient. It omits overwrite semantics, error behavior, and any statement of what distinguishes it from sftp_write_file, which a mutation tool with no annotations should cover.

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 localPath, remotePath and connectionId are already documented in the schema, including the default-connection behavior. The description adds no syntax, path format, or override details beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (上传/upload), the source (宿主机本地文件) and the destination (远程目标主机), so the agent knows the direction of transfer. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling sftp_write_file, which also writes to a remote path, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as sftp_write_file or sftp_download. An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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