mcpx

ssh_forward

Create SSH port forwards for local, remote, or dynamic SOCKS tunneling.

Instructions

Create a port forward.

Spec: L:lport:dhost:dport (local), R:rport:dhost:dport (remote), or D:lport (dynamic SOCKS).

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": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "spec": "<spec>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`spec`	Yes
`user`	No
`port`	No
`key_path`	No
`known_hosts`	No
`jump`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions creation but does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens on invalid spec, if it blocks, how to close, or any side effects. Only 'create' is indicated, leaving many aspects ambiguous.

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 brief (two sentences plus a code block) and front-loaded with the purpose. The spec format is well-structured. However, it could be improved by listing or summarizing parameters instead of leaving them to the schema alone.

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?

For a complex SSH port forwarding tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits error conditions, default values, return value explanation, and usage scenarios. Significant gaps remain for an agent to use it reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the 'spec' parameter via format examples. Other parameters (host, user, port, key_path, known_hosts, jump) are not described, failing to compensate for the lack of structured definitions.

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 'Create a port forward' with a verb and resource. It also explains the spec format for local, remote, and dynamic forwarding, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_forward_close (close) and ssh_forward_list (list).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., need an active SSH connection), or context such as whether the forward is persistent or how to manage it. The spec format is shown but usage conditions are omitted.

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

Deploy Server