SSH MCP Server

save_server

Save SSH server configurations and credentials with environment labels to prevent accidental production changes. Requires confirmation token for overwriting existing configs.

Instructions

保存服务器配置和凭证。覆盖现有配置时需要先获取 confirmationToken。强烈建议设置 environment 字段以防止误操作生产服务器。

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": {
      "alias": "<alias>",
      "host": "<host>",
      "username": "<username>",
      "authType": "<authType>"
    },
    "name": "save_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`alias`	Yes	服务器别名（唯一标识）
`host`	Yes	服务器地址
`port`	No	SSH 端口（可选，默认 22）
`username`	Yes	用户名
`authType`	Yes	认证类型：password 或 privateKey
`password`	No	密码（当 authType=password 时必须提供）
`privateKey`	No	私钥内容或私钥文件路径（如 /path/to/id_rsa）。当 authType=privateKey 时必须提供
`passphrase`	No	私钥密码（仅 privateKey 有密码保护时需要）
`environment`	No	环境标签（强烈建议设置，用于防止误操作生产服务器）
`description`	No	服务器描述
`group`	No	服务器分组
`confirmationToken`	No	覆盖现有配置时需要的确认 token（首次调用会返回 token，使用 token 再次调用以确认）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the confirmation token for overwriting and recommends setting the environment field. However, it omits details on first-time vs. update behavior, whether partial updates are allowed, return values, error conditions, or security implications, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds crucial usage guidance. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the core function and the unique confirmation workflow, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and what happens on failure or partial updates. The schema descriptions are thorough, but the tool description could be more complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to set the environment field to prevent production mishaps and clarifying that confirmationToken is required for overwriting, enriching the context beyond the schema for those two parameters.

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 the tool saves server configuration and credentials. The confirmation token workflow and environment recommendation distinguish it from siblings like connect, exec, and list_servers, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for saving configurations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for updating vs. creating, or when to use remove_server instead). No exclusions or guidance on tool selection are provided, limiting the agent's decision support.

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