ssh-winrm-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by domain (profiles, sessions, jobs, inventory). The execution tools (remote_execute, remote_run_program, remote_run_script) have some conceptual overlap but their descriptions clarify specific use cases.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority follow a consistent remote_<domain>_<action> pattern (e.g., remote_profile_create, remote_session_open). A few exceptions like remote_command_groups, remote_upload, and remote_test deviate from this pattern.
Tool Count4/5
With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the broad scope covering profiles, inventory, command groups, file transfer, execution, sessions, and jobs. Each tool serves a distinct purpose within its domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers full lifecycle management for profiles, sessions, and jobs, plus file transfer, execution, and inventory validation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for remote SSH/WinRM management.
Average 3.4/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no behavioral context beyond the implied mutation. It does not disclose what happens to the old profile, whether overwrite is required, permission requirements, or error states. This is a serious gap for a rename operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded, but it is so brief that it borders on under-specification. It earns its place but provides minimal information beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotations: it omits behavioral details, parameter semantics, and usage distinctions. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (name, new_name, overwrite). The overwrite flag is particularly ambiguous and unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'rename' with resource 'saved profile', clearly distinguishing it from sibling profile tools such as create, update, list, get, and delete. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity or tautology.
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 remote_profile_update, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'current state' implies polling, but it does not disclose whether the call blocks, returns cached data, or how states are represented. No side effects or required permissions are 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning its place efficiently.
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?
Despite the tool's low parameter count and the presence of an output schema, the description leaves important gaps: no mention of how job_id relates to other remote_job_* tools, no possible state values, no preconditions, and no alternative tool exclusions. It is minimally viable but under-specified for an agent navigating a large family of job tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining the job_id parameter. It does not do so; job_id is only listed in the schema with a title, and the description fails to clarify where to obtain it or what format it should take.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'current state of a long-running job', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes 'status' from sibling tools like remote_job_list, remote_job_start, and remote_job_cancel, though it does not explicitly contrast with remote_job_result.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_job_result or remote_job_list. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when checking a job's live state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'describe' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for invalid group names. This is minimal disclosure.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, but the description lacks parameter semantics and usage context. It states what the output covers (actions and parameters), but the input 'group' remains vague, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has one required string 'group' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'specialized command group', providing a slight context that the parameter identifies a group, but it fails to explain the expected format or how to obtain valid values.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb 'describe' and a defined resource ('actions and parameters available in a specialized command group'). It distinguishes itself from execution tools like remote_command_group_run, but does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify the difference from remote_command_groups.
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 tool versus sibling tools such as remote_command_groups (listing groups) or remote_command_group_run (executing a group). The context implies inspection before execution, but this is not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the dry_run behavior and the session/connection choice, but it omits critical traits such as side effects, permissions, potential destructiveness, or what happens after execution. For an 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences and a fragment, every part earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential usage detail. No redundant words or fluff.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (9 parameters, 2 required) with no annotations. The description does not explain the core parameters (`group`, `action`) nor how they relate to the 'specialized action' concept. It lacks essential context for correct invocation, making it incomplete for this complexity level.
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 explain parameters. It clarifies the relationship between session_name and profile/connection, and defines dry_run's effect. However, the required parameters `group` and `action` are not described at all, leaving the agent without enough context to fill them correctly. Other optional parameters like `timeout`, `parameters`, and `output_limit` also lack explanations.
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 tool's purpose: 'Build and run a specialized action' with concrete examples (user management, services, reboot, system inventory). It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from generic execution tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 minimal usage hints: 'Use either session_name or profile/connection' and explains dry_run, but it does not specify when to choose this tool over similar siblings like remote_execute or remote_run_script. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, making it hard for an agent to select this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden. It only mentions the config-path flexibility but fails to disclose overwrite behavior, effects on existing inventories, or any safety considerations. This is a notable gap for a creation tool.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action. The second sentence adds relevant context without unnecessary detail.
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?
Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description omits key semantics about the overwrite parameter and what a 'local inventory' is. With no annotations, this is insufficient for confident selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'overwrite' parameter has no description in the input schema, and the tool description never mentions it. The agent receives zero help in understanding the parameter's meaning or consequences beyond the default value.
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 a specific action ('Create an empty local inventory') and is distinct from siblings like remote_inventory_status and remote_inventory_validate. However, 'local inventory' is not defined, and its relationship to the 'remote' tool family is somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides an implied usage context ('A config path is not required to start the server'), which hints at when this tool might be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for clearer guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only explains the wait and timeout parameters, but fails to disclose what happens if the job is still running when wait=false, what timeout=0 means, or whether the tool blocks indefinitely. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words, and the wait/timeout hint is presented efficiently.
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 no annotations and only a bare-bones wait/timeout hint, the description fails to cover edge cases like premature result retrieval, timeout expiration, or job failure. The output schema may define return values, but behavioral context around waiting is underspecified.
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 clarifies that wait=true enables waiting and timeout bounds it in seconds, but does not explain the meaning of timeout=0 or the behavior of wait=false, leaving important parameter semantics ambiguous.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'job result', clearly indicating the tool fetches the outcome of a job. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like remote_job_status, but the resource type is distinct enough to infer its purpose.
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 such as remote_job_status or remote_job_list. It gives parameter-level advice about setting wait=true and using timeout, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflow placement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Upload and run' and supported languages, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the uploaded script is cleaned up (despite a cleanup parameter), what side effects occur on the remote system, whether it writes temporary files, or what execution/error semantics are. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution 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 two sentences, front-loaded, and contains zero fluff or redundant information. Every word adds value by identifying the action, the resource type, and supported formats. It is a model of concise, clear writing.
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 high complexity (11 parameters, multiple sibling tools, no annotations), this sparse description is incomplete. It does not cover usage context, parameter roles, behavioral implications, or how it relates to the broader tool family. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves too many critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'inline or local' (mapping to script and local_path) and 'supports ... languages' (mapping to language), but the remaining parameters (args, cleanup, profile, timeout, connection, interpreter, remote_path, output_limit) are entirely unexplained. This is far from adequate for an 11-parameter tool.
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 tool uploads and runs an inline or local script, with specific verb 'upload and run' and resource 'script'. It also lists supported script types, which gives a sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remote_execute or remote_run_program, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., remote_execute, remote_run_program, remote_command_group_run). There is no mention of trade-offs, prerequisites, or scenarios that favor this tool, so the agent gets no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safely quoted argument list' which hints at argument handling, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, exit code behavior, or output handling. This is sparse for an execution tool that could have significant impact.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is achieved.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, yet the description is only one sentence. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the absence of parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral notes makes it inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the eight parameters (program, args, cwd, env, profile, timeout, connection, output_limit), nor does it clarify the 'saved or ad-hoc target' concept in terms of profile/connection parameters. This is a serious gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs an executable, specifies the safely quoted argument list mechanism, and notes it works on saved or ad-hoc targets. This distinguishes it from siblings like remote_run_script (scripts) and remote_execute (generic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for running executables with controlled arguments on saved or ad-hoc targets, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like remote_run_script or remote_command_group_run. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full behavioral burden. The description only states 'Create a saved profile' and suggests using environment references, but it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing profiles, rejects duplicates, or requires specific permissions. This is insufficient 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 two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence is substantive and not redundant. There is no wasted text.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool's complexity (a free-form settings object) requires more guidance on how to construct valid input. The description lacks information about required settings fields, validation behavior, and interaction with existing profiles, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
The input schema provides only parameter names ('name', 'settings') with zero description coverage. The description adds value by mentioning 'password_env' and 'passphrase environment references', giving a clue about the contents of the 'settings' object. However, it does not explain the full structure or provide examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 uses the verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a saved profile', distinguishing it from sibling tools like remote_profile_update and remote_profile_delete. The second sentence about password_env is a supplementary note, not the core purpose, which remains unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage hint ('Prefer password_env and passphrase environment references') for constructing the settings object, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus remote_profile_update or remote_profile_rename. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so it only implicitly conveys that this is for creating new profiles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states only 'Delete', which implies a destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects on active sessions or dependent resources, or required permissions. This leaves the agent without important context about the consequences of invoking the 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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core function without requiring additional reading.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter and an output schema—the description is minimally sufficient to understand the basic operation. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., irreversibility) and any usage guidance leaves gaps, making it only adequate for straightforward invocation.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds only the phrase 'saved connection profile', which provides minimal context that the name refers to a profile, but it does not clarify expected format, uniqueness, or how the name is used for deletion. More detail is needed to compensate for the absent schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a saved connection profile'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like remote_profile_update, remote_profile_rename, and remote_profile_list by making the destructive action explicit.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the action is obvious from the name, the description does not explicitly state scenarios where deletion is appropriate or how it relates to other profile management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the recursive flag for directories, but does not address potential overwrites, permission requirements, error handling, or effects of a successful copy. This is insufficient for a tool that creates files on the server.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to describing the tool's core function or a key parameter usage. This is a model of conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description only touches on recursive behavior and vaguely implies path roles. It omits essential context about profile, connection, path formats, and operational side effects, making the description far from complete for safe and correct invocation.
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 clarify parameter meanings. It adds meaning for 'recursive' via the explicit instruction, and indirectly for remote_path/local_path by mentioning 'Copy a remote file or directory to the MCP server.' However, it leaves 'profile' and 'connection' unexplained, leaving substantial semantic gaps for half the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('remote file or directory to the MCP server'), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. The direction (remote to server) distinguishes it from sibling remote_upload, even without an explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Set recursive=true for directories' provides a clear usage condition for a specific scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remote_upload. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the default behavior is (e.g., listing all jobs vs. only a session), or whether pagination or ordering applies. The phrase 'optionally restricted to one session' hints at filtering but does not explain default behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence of nine words. It wastes no words and clearly states the primary action and the optional modifier.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, likely a list output) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like default behavior or read-only status, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, but the description does give some meaning to the session_name parameter by stating that the list can be 'restricted to one session.' However, it does not clarify the format or whether it refers to a session ID or name, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'asynchronous jobs', and the optional restriction to one session adds scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remote_job_status, remote_job_result, and remote_job_cancel, which target individual jobs.
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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it lists jobs, but there is no explicit comparison to remote_job_status or other job-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds one behavioral detail: 'SSH cancellation closes that named shell session.' However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects on dependent jobs, or permission requirements, which leaves the behavioral profile partially undisclosed.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase earns its place, and the second sentence adds a useful behavioral nuance without unnecessary fluff.
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?
For a simple cancellation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and an important side effect. It does not detail error cases or confirmation behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
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 should compensate for the single job_id parameter. It does not explain what job_id refers to or where it comes from (e.g., from remote_job_start or remote_job_list). The parameter name and the tool's purpose provide some inference, but the guidance is insufficient.
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 ('Interrupt and cancel') and the resource ('a running job'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no other sibling has cancel semantics, so the differentiation is inherent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a running job' implies the tool is for active jobs, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like remote_job_status or remote_job_result. The usage context is clear but not elaborated with exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden. It states that sessions are closed but does not disclose that this is a destructive operation, potential side effects, or whether any confirmation is required. The term 'named sessions' is also ambiguous without further explanation.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and condition. It contains no wasted words, though it is slightly too terse to fully convey behavioral nuance.
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 tool with one parameter, the description provides the core action and condition. However, it lacks warnings about the destructive nature of closing sessions and does not explain the behavior when no sessions are idle or when multiple sessions match. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves gaps in operational context.
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?
The description clarifies max_idle_seconds as the 'requested number of seconds', which maps directly to the parameter. However, it does not add detail about acceptable values, the default of 3600, or how the threshold is applied. With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('named sessions'), with a specific condition ('idle for at least the requested number of seconds'). This distinguishes it from siblings like remote_session_close and remote_session_close_all by adding the idle-time filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when idle sessions need cleanup, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like remote_session_close or remote_session_close_all are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it also closes the 'remote shell/runspace,' which adds some detail, but it fails to indicate whether the action is destructive, irreversible, or what happens if the named session does not exist. This is a significant gap for a close/delete operation.
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 sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It earns its place by conveying the action, target, and the fact that the remote shell/runspace is included, all in a concise format.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks context on side effects, error behavior, and when to use it versus alternatives. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained, but the absence of annotations leaves gaps in operational expectations.
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?
The input schema contains only 'name' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description clarifies that the parameter refers to a named session, but it does not specify the expected format or how the name should be obtained (e.g., from remote_session_list). It adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and target: 'Close one named session and its remote shell/runspace.' The verb 'close' and the specific resource 'one named session' distinguish it from sibling tools like remote_session_close_all and remote_session_cleanup_idle, which are not mentioned here but are clearly different in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for closing a specific session by name, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as close_all or cleanup_idle. No scenarios or exclusion criteria are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the action but omits important context such as whether the operation is reversible, whether it includes the current session, or any side effects of closing all active sessions. For a potentially destructive operation, 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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the action. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks behavioral context around the destructiveness and scope (e.g., whether it closes the current session), which is important for an agent to select and invoke this tool safely.
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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no parameter information but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Close' and the resource 'every active session,' clearly distinguishing this bulk action from sibling tools like remote_session_close (singular) and remote_session_cleanup_idle (idle sessions). It precisely states what the 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, such as remote_session_close for a single session or remote_session_cleanup_idle for idle sessions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'every active session,' with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Validate' without indicating whether this is a read-only check, whether it attempts connections, or whether it modifies anything. The nature of the validation (syntax, connectivity, credentials) is not explained.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It names the exact resources validated, but lacks any mention of validation criteria or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific detail. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Validate') with clear targets ('inventory JSON', 'stored SSH/WinRM profiles'), distinguishing it from siblings like remote_inventory_status. It effectively defines the tool's scope.
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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as remote_inventory_status or remote_inventory_init. The description only states the action without any context, exclusions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses short-lived connection lifecycle, protocol support (SSH/WinRM), WinRM shell options, and SSH shell behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it omits security and failure-mode details.
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 four sentences with a small JSON example. Every sentence adds relevant detail, and the purpose is front-loaded without fluff.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It covers connection and shell details but misses usage guidance and most parameter semantics, despite the output schema covering return values.
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 explains only the connection parameter with an example and mentions shell semantics, but command, profile, timeout, output_limit, cwd, and env are left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute one command using a short-lived SSH or WinRM connection,' specifying the action, resource, and transient nature. This distinguishes it from session-based tools like remote_session_execute and long-running job tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for one-off command execution and explains connection/profile override, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like remote_session_execute or remote_job_start, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'secrets redacted,' which informs the user about output sanitization. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling when the profile does not exist or any permission requirements. This is a minimal but relevant disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, object, and key detail (redaction) efficiently.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key output trait. However, it omits any mention of error conditions (e.g., not found) or prerequisites. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description is still basic and leaves some gaps.
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?
The input schema has only one parameter, 'name', with no description. The tool description says 'one saved connection profile,' which implies that 'name' identifies the profile, but it is not explicitly stated. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit about the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('one saved connection profile'), with a scope ('one') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_profile_list (which lists all profiles) and remote_profile_create (which creates). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a single profile by name, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like remote_profile_list. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidelines are only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool waits for completion, which is important behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the transparency burden, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must already exist), error behavior, or how timeout/output_limit affect execution.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes to the purpose and behavioral overview, with no filler.
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 tool with four parameters and a prerequisite (persistent session), the description is too sparse. While the presence of an output schema covers return values, the description fails to address session existence, timeout behavior, or output limits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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, the description should compensate, but it only implicitly references 'name' via 'named persistent session' and 'command' via 'Run a command'. It provides no detail about the 'timeout' or 'output_limit' parameters, leaving their semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Run a command inside a named persistent session and wait for completion.' This is specific and distinguishes it from generic 'remote_execute' by highlighting the persistent session context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies when to use this tool—inside a named persistent session—and indicates blocking behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'remote_execute' for non-persistent commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden. It does not disclose potential destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting remote files), authentication needs, or other side effects of the upload operation, leaving the agent with an incomplete safety picture.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The core purpose is clearly stated, but with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks important context about authentication (profile/connection) and potential pitfalls. The presence of an output schema helps, but it does not replace the need for behavioral context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'recursive' parameter and implicitly defines local_path and remote_path through 'local file or directory to remote host', but it does not mention the 'profile' or 'connection' parameters, leaving 40% of parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Copy' and clearly identifies the resource (a local file or directory to a remote host), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_download. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for when to use this tool (uploading files) and gives a specific instruction for directories (recursive=true). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states a read-only 'show' operation but does not disclose potential dependencies (e.g., whether remote session or prior inventory initialization is required) or any side effects. The simplicity of the tool makes it acceptable, but the lack of detail prevents a higher score.
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 concise sentence without extraneous words. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose with minimal length.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the main function. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'automatic local inventory' refers to, but for a status-check tool this is sufficient.
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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows the automatic local inventory path and its existence status. The verb 'show' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like remote_inventory_init and remote_inventory_validate.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a long-running command, returns immediately, and yields a job ID, which implies async execution. Yet it does not mention whether the session must already exist, required permissions, or behavior upon timeout, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return structure is covered. However, the description lacks crucial context about session prerequisites, timeout semantics, and error conditions, making it only partially complete for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 implicitly references 'command' and 'session_name' in prose, but does not explain their formats or constraints, and 'timeout' is entirely unaddressed. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start'), the resource ('a long-running command in a named session'), and the immediate result ('return immediately with a job ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_job_status or remote_execute, which either monitor or run synchronously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'long-running command' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and 'return immediately' signals asynchronous behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that secrets are redacted and that filtering is optional, which are important behavioral traits. It does not cover every potential nuance, but it provides adequate transparency for a list operation.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with 10 words. It omit extraneous details and includes only essential information.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers purpose, redaction, and filtering. It is sufficient for most use cases, though it leaves the default behavior when no filters are provided implicit.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies both 'protocol' and 'tag' as optional filters, which gives basic meaning. However, it does not explain how multiple filters combine (e.g., AND/OR) or provide any format guidance, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved profiles') and clearly distinguishes from sibling operations like get, create, or update. It also notes a key differentiator: secrets are redacted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for listing profiles, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as remote_profile_get or state when not to use it. Usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only list operation and that only active, named sessions are included, along with health status. However, it does not explain what 'health' means or address pagination or error states, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 sentence of eight words, with the key verb 'List' front-loaded. It includes the essential qualifier 'active' and the health aspect without any wasted words.
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?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is complete enough. It covers scope (active named sessions) and the health component; return values are covered by the output schema, so no further detail is required.
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?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so no parameter details are needed. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies a distinct resource 'active named sessions' along with the additional context 'their health.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling session tools like remote_session_open and remote_session_close, and from other list tools like remote_profile_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (listing sessions) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or other session management tools, but the name and description make the primary purpose clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: sessions remain alive until closed or server exit, SSH state persists, and WinRM uses a reusable PSRP runspace. This goes beyond the schema but omits details like behavior on duplicate session names or error conditions.
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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and then adding succinct behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and high-level behavior, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the lack of parameter explanations leaves the agent without enough context to correctly populate the connection object and optional fields. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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% and the description provides almost no per-parameter guidance. It hints that 'shell' relates to SSH vs WinRM but does not explain 'profile' or the structure of the 'connection' object. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb ('Open') and specific resource ('named persistent SSH shell or WinRM PowerShell runspace'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like remote_session_execute and remote_session_close. It clearly states the tool's core function of creating a named session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the session's lifetime and persistence semantics, giving clear context for when to use this tool (when a persistent session with retained state is needed). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes a 'harmless marker command,' which signals non-destructive behavior, but it does not describe the marker command's nature, the expected result, or any permission requirements. This is more informative than a bare statement, but still lacks depth.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Test a saved or ad-hoc connection by executing a harmless marker command.' Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.
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?
Despite lacking annotations, the tool is simple: two optional parameters and an output schema (which covers return values). The description gives the core purpose and safety indication, and the output schema handles return details. It lacks explicit prerequisites or when-to-use guidance, but for a connection-test tool it is reasonably complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It does so by mapping 'saved' to the profile parameter and 'ad-hoc' to the connection parameter, giving useful context. However, it does not explain parameter types, how they interact, or what happens if both or neither are provided, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Test a saved or ad-hoc connection' – a specific verb (test), resource (connection), and scope (saved or ad-hoc). It distinguishes itself from siblings like remote_execute or remote_run_program by emphasizing the harmless, verification-focused nature of the test.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for testing connections, not for executing actual commands. It implies usage for validation, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions; however, the word 'harmless' strongly suggests it is not for real work, and sibling tool names like remote_execute offer implicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It states that create_directory creates a folder (one-time) and reload is needed after module edits, implying state changes. However, it does not detail what happens if the folder already exists, whether reload re-scans, or any permission requirements.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a tool with two optional boolean parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It mentions the persistent local directory and flag conditions. It is sufficient, though it could note that the primary action is a list operation with optional side effects.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so effectively: create_directory=true creates the folder, reload=true refreshes after edits. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare boolean schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List command groups and the persistent local plug-in directory.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like remote_command_group_describe and remote_command_group_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage instructions for the optional flags: 'Set create_directory=true once to create the folder. Set reload=true after adding or editing a module.' This clarifies when to use the tool and when to set each flag, though it does not contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the merging/replace semantics, how remove_fields works, and the constraint that required fields must remain valid. It does not mention errors, idempotency, or return values, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful 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 three short, front-loaded sentences. No redundancies or irrelevant details. Each sentence adds value: behavior, mode toggle, and removal/validation.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential update operations and constraints. It lacks explicit error conditions or nonexistent-profile behavior, but the output schema likely documents return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well. It explicitly links 'changes' to merging, 'replace' to full replacement, and 'remove_fields' to deleting optional settings. It also clarifies validation via required fields. 'name' is self-explanatory, and all parameters are effectively given semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a profile by merging changes, or fully replace it with replace=true.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (profile), and two distinct behaviors. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create, delete, and rename.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives usage context by explaining when to use merge vs. replace mode and instructs to use remove_fields for deleting optional settings. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or references to sibling alternatives, but the provided guidance is clear for straightforward update scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ssh-winrm-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bigbatmanorg/ssh-winrm-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bigbatmanorg/ssh-winrm-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ssh-winrm-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bigbatmanorg/ssh-winrm-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bigbatmanorg/ssh-winrm-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bigbatmanorg/ssh-winrm-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server