ssh-mcp-pro

Read Remote File

fs_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a file from a remote system via an active SSH session, with support for custom encoding and optional byte limit.

Instructions

Reads a file from the remote system

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fs_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	File path to read
`encoding`	No	File encoding (default: utf8)
`maxBytes`	No	Optional per-request read size limit in bytes
`sessionId`	Yes	SSH session ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.5Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, encoding implications, maxBytes enforcement) beyond the trivial reading action.

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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain that reading occurs via SSH session or provide context on file size handling, which might be relevant with many sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarifications for parameters like sessionId or maxBytes beyond what is in the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Reads' and the resource 'a file from the remote system', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_write, fs_list, etc.

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 alternatives, such as fs_stat for metadata or file_download for larger transfers. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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