Write or append UTF-8 content to a remote file on a specified host via SFTP, with base64-exec fallback when SFTP is unavailable. Provide the absolute remote path.
Write remote file via SFTP (base64-exec fallback). Param is filePath (not path). direct hosts only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | rewrite | |
| content | Yes | File content (UTF-8) | |
| host_id | Yes | ||
| filePath | Yes | Absolute remote path (required name: filePath, not path) | |
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses a fallback mechanism (base64-exec) and a host restriction, which adds value beyond the obvious write operation. However, it does not explicitly state overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure handling – significant gaps 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly packed sentence conveys the method, fallback, parameter trap, and a constraint. Every element earns its place; the most important info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral safety disclosures, and parameter semantics beyond a single naming caveat. An agent would need to rely heavily on the incomplete schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 40%, yet the description only clarifies the filePath naming. It provides no elaboration on mode, timeoutMs, or host_id, leaving those parameters ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (write remote file), the method (SFTP), and a naming gotcha (filePath). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_read_file and ssh_exec, and even pre-empts a common parameter mistake.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It establishes the purpose (writing files) implicitly, which indicates when to use it, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. The 'direct hosts only' constraint adds context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.