Skip to main content
Glama
lgariv

SSH MCP Server

by lgariv
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: ssh_run executes commands and returns results, while ssh_test_connection only tests connectivity and returns hostname. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'ssh_' prefix pattern with clear verb_noun naming (ssh_run and ssh_test_connection). The naming is predictable and follows the same convention throughout.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for SSH operations. While the tools cover basic connectivity and command execution, there are many obvious missing SSH functionalities like file transfer, session management, or interactive operations.

    Completeness2/5

    For an SSH server, the surface is significantly incomplete. There's no file transfer (scp/sftp), no interactive shell capability, no key management, no port forwarding, and no session persistence. Agents will hit dead ends trying to perform common SSH tasks beyond basic command execution.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'stdout, stderr, and exit code', which is useful, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements (e.g., SSH key or password), error handling (e.g., connection failures), rate limits, or whether it modifies remote systems. For a tool that executes remote commands, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('runs a non-interactive command remotely over SSH') and includes the return values. There is zero wasted text, and every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

    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?

    Given the complexity of SSH command execution (involving remote systems, authentication, and potential side effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations to cover safety or behavioral traits, and no output schema to detail return values beyond a brief mention, the description fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use. It should address authentication, error scenarios, or destructive potential.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'command' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or usage tips for the command parameter). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

    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 specific action ('runs a non-interactive command remotely over SSH') and the resource ('command'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ssh_test_connection' which likely tests connectivity rather than executing commands. The verb+resource combination is precise 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 Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ssh_test_connection' or any alternatives. It mentions 'non-interactive' but doesn't explain when interactive commands might be needed or what other tools could handle them. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the connection attempt and return value, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what happens on connection failure (error message format), timeout behavior, authentication requirements, whether it modifies any state, or if it has rate limits. For a connectivity tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and return value. It's front-loaded with the main action and has zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

    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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally describe what happens on failure and the format of the return value. The description mentions the return but doesn't specify if it's a string, object, or what happens if connection fails.

    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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.

    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 ('attempts to connect') and resource ('configured SSH host'), and specifies the return value ('returns the remote hostname'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'ssh_run' by focusing on connection testing rather than command execution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is for validation/diagnostic purposes, which would make it a perfect 5.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ssh_run'. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing SSH configuration or suggest this should be used before running commands. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool recommendations.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ssh-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ssh-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lgariv/ssh-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server