SSH MCP Server

sftp_ls

List remote directory contents via SFTP. Specify path and optionally alias or host to connect.

Instructions

列出远程目录内容。使用 alias（推荐）或 host 指定目标服务器，单连接时可省略。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "sftp_ls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	远程目录路径（必需）
`alias`	No	服务器别名（推荐）
`host`	No	服务器地址（多个活跃连接时必须指定，单连接时可省略）
`port`	No	SSH 端口（可选）
`username`	No	用户名（可选，配合 host 使用）
`targetConfirmationToken`	No	服务器切换确认 token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether an active connection is required, error handling (e.g., invalid path), recursion, or the meaning of targetConfirmationToken. This lack of detail hinders safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core usage pattern, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the key connectivity nuance. However, it omits expected behaviors like output format (file listing structure) and error conditions, which a well-rounded description should include.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, providing baseline clarity. The description adds value by explaining when alias is preferred over host and that host can be omitted for single connections, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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's purpose as '列出远程目录内容' (list remote directory contents), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sftp_download or exec by focusing on directory listing.

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 guidance on using alias vs host, and notes that host can be omitted when there is a single active connection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like exec for listing, or when not to use it.

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