Skip to main content
Glama
bvisible

MCP SSH Manager

ssh_list_servers

View all configured SSH servers in the MCP SSH Manager to manage connections, execute remote commands, and transfer files across multiple systems.

Instructions

List all configured SSH servers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'ssh_list_servers' tool as part of the core essential SSH operations group in the centralized tool registry.
    core: [
      'ssh_list_servers',
      'ssh_execute',
      'ssh_upload',
      'ssh_download',
      'ssh_sync'
    ],
  • The getAllServers() method returns the list of all configured SSH servers from loaded config sources (.env, TOML), which implements the core logic for listing servers used by the ssh_list_servers tool.
    getAllServers() {
      return Array.from(this.servers.values());
    }
  • Alternative getAllServers() method that parses environment variables to list server names, supporting dynamic 'all' group which may be used by ssh_list_servers.
    getAllServers() {
      // This will be populated from the main server config
      const servers = [];
    
      for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(process.env)) {
        if (key.startsWith('SSH_SERVER_') && key.endsWith('_HOST')) {
          const serverName = key.replace('SSH_SERVER_', '').replace('_HOST', '').toLowerCase();
          servers.push(serverName);
        }
      }
    
      return servers;
    }
  • Test validation confirming 'ssh_list_servers' is in the expected core tools list.
    const expectedCore = ['ssh_list_servers', 'ssh_execute', 'ssh_upload', 'ssh_download', 'ssh_sync'];
    
    for (const tool of expectedCore) {
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'configured SSH servers' entails (e.g., from a configuration file, database, or memory), potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits), or the output format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configured SSH servers' means, how the data is returned, or any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors). For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all configured SSH servers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_session_list' or 'ssh_tunnel_list', which would require a 5, but it's unambiguous in its 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssh_session_list' or 'ssh_tunnel_list' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/bvisible/mcp-ssh-manager'

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