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

mcp-remote-ssh

by faizbawa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ssh_shell_read

Read recent output from a remote SSH shell session to monitor long-running commands without sending new input.

Instructions

Read the current content of the interactive shell buffer. Use this to poll for output from long-running commands without sending anything.

Args: session_id: The session ID returned by ssh_connect. lines: Number of tail lines to return (default: 100).

Returns: Recent shell output (tail of buffer).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_shell_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes
linesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors: it only reads, returns tail lines, and does not send input. No contradictions or missing destructive warnings.

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?

Concise with clear Args/Returns structure. No unnecessary sentences; every part adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, presence of output schema, and clear description of return value, the description is complete. No gaps identified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% but description adds meaningful detail: explains session_id is from ssh_connect, and lines controls tail lines with default 100. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Explicitly states it reads the interactive shell buffer for polling output without sending anything, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ssh_shell_send or ssh_shell_wait.

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?

Specifies when to use (poll for output from long-running commands without sending anything). Does not explicitly list when-not or alternatives, but the context and sibling names provide implicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools