Skip to main content
Glama
cygnussystems

cygnus-ssh-mcp

Official

ssh_file_move

Move or rename remote files and directories over SSH. Optionally overwrite existing destinations or use sudo for permission-restricted paths.

Instructions

Move or rename a file or directory (works for both - whichever source is).

If destination already exists: fails cleanly with overwrite=False (default); with overwrite=True, it's replaced (mv -f/Move-Item -Force). If source doesn't exist, also fails cleanly rather than raising.

Returns: {'success': True, 'message': str} on success, or {'success': False, 'message': str} on failure (source not found, destination exists and overwrite=False, permission error) - not a raised exception.

Long-running calls: if this takes longer than the server's wait cap (default 50s), it
returns {"status": "in_progress", "handle_id": ...} instead of the result - the work keeps
running. Get the result by polling ssh_cmd_check_status(handle_id=...), which returns this
tool's normal response once finished. Do not call it again meanwhile. Only one such
operation runs at a time; another one started meanwhile fails with a 'busy' error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesSource file or directory path
use_sudoNoUse sudo for the operation
overwriteNoOverwrite destination if it exists
destinationYesDestination path

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses error semantics (fails cleanly rather than raising), the exact return shape on success/failure, the async handoff (status in_progress with handle_id), the 50s wait cap, and the single-operation concurrency 'busy' constraint. This is far beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and overwrite behavior, then return values, then the async caveat. Every block earns its place, though the description is on the longer side for a move tool and the 'Returns:' block partially overlaps the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the safety-relevant behaviors (overwrite risk, clean failure, permission errors), the async lifecycle, and the concurrency limit. An agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that `overwrite` defaults to False and that True maps to `mv -f`/`Move-Item -Force`, and clarifies the move-vs-rename semantics tied to `source`/`destination`. `use_sudo` is left to the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States specific verbs (move/rename) and resource (file or directory), and clarifies it handles both by inspecting `source`. An agent can immediately distinguish it from ssh_file_copy and ssh_dir_copy without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear conditions for the overwrite semantics and source-not-found behavior, and routes the agent to ssh_cmd_check_status for long-running cases while warning 'do not call it again meanwhile'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ssh_file_copy for the copy-vs-move decision, 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.