Connect to an SFTP server to manage remote files. Use host, username, and optional port, password, or private key to establish the session.
Подключиться к серверу по SFTP для управления файлами
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Хост/IP сервера | |
| port | No | Порт SSH (по умолчанию 22) | |
| password | No | Пароль SSH | |
| username | Yes | Имя пользователя SSH | |
| privateKey | No | Приватный ключ SSH (содержимое, не путь) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about authentication requirements (password/privateKey), session persistence, error handling, or that a connection should be closed via sftp_disconnect. It also doesn't disclose any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It earns its place but could be expanded slightly to include essential context; as written, it is efficient but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits authentication mode, whether the connection persists, and the need to call sftp_disconnect, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information; the schema already documents host, port, username, password, and privateKey with descriptions and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Подключиться к серверу по SFTP' (connect to SFTP server). It clearly conveys establishing an SFTP connection, and the sibling set includes sftp_disconnect and file operations, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'для управления файлами' implies a prerequisite for file management operations, but it does not instruct the agent to use sftp_disconnect afterward or contrast with other connection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.