SSH MCP Server

exec_batch

Execute commands on multiple servers simultaneously. Manage batch operations with confirmation for dangerous commands.

Instructions

在多台服务器批量执行命令。批量操作风险极高！包含生产环境服务器时会有特别警告。危险命令需要 confirmationToken。

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": {
      "command": "<command>",
      "servers": "<servers>"
    },
    "name": "exec_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`command`	Yes	要执行的命令
`servers`	Yes	服务器列表
`timeout`	No	命令超时时间（毫秒）
`confirmationToken`	No	危险命令确认 token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that batch operations are risky and require confirmation for dangerous commands, but it does not detail error handling, output format, concurrent execution behavior, or what constitutes a 'dangerous command'. This is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 short (two sentences) and conveys the essential purpose and risk information without fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for warnings) to improve scanability.

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 high-risk batch execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details on output format, error handling, partial failure behavior, and the exact warning mechanism for production servers. It sets risk expectations but is not fully complete for an agent to use reliably.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional per-parameter semantics; it only reinforces the risk and token usage. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool executes commands on multiple servers ('在多台服务器批量执行命令'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like exec (single server) or exec_sudo. It also highlights the batch aspect and risk, making the 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it warns about high risk, mentions special warnings for production servers, and specifies that dangerous commands require a confirmationToken. This informs the agent when caution is needed, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools.

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