mcpHydroSSH

ssh_update_server

Modify an existing remote server's SSH connection settings: host, port, username, authentication method, and credentials.

Instructions

Update an existing server config

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_update_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`serverId`	Yes	Server ID to update
`name`	No	Server display name
`host`	No	Server hostname or IP
`port`	No	SSH port (default: 22)
`username`	No	SSH username
`authMethod`	No	Authentication method (default: "key")
`privateKeyPath`	No	Path to private key (required for "key" auth)
`password`	No	Password (required for "password" auth)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Mar 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'update' without disclosing whether it overwrites or merges fields, whether it is destructive, or any permission requirements. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single 4-word sentence. While concise, it is underspecified and could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. With 8 parameters and a mutation action, the description fails to provide enough context for safe and correct use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'update', achieving the baseline.

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 (Update) and the resource (existing server config). It distinguishes from add/remove tools but lacks specificity about what config fields are updated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_add_server or ssh_remove_server. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., server must exist).

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

Deploy Server