mcpx

ssh_upload

Upload files or directories to a remote host via SFTP. Specify local and remote paths, and optionally set recursive upload, user, port, SSH key, and jump host.

Instructions

Upload a file or tree to a remote host via SFTP.

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>",
      "local_path": "<local_path>",
      "remote_path": "<remote_path>"
    },
    "name": "ssh_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`local_path`	Yes
`remote_path`	Yes
`recursive`	No
`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

B3.1/5.0

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 'Upload' (a write operation) but does not mention destructive potential (overwriting files), authentication requirements, error handling, or other behaviors beyond the basic 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning its place without any fluff.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is too sparse. It does not cover authentication, prerequisites, or parameter relationships, leaving significant gaps for the agent to handle properly.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'file or tree' hints at the recursive parameter, but it does not explain any other parameters (host, user, key_path, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 verb 'Upload' and the resource 'a file or tree to a remote host via SFTP'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ssh_download (download) and ssh_exec (execute command) by specifying the action and protocol.

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 like ssh_download or ssh_exec. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH access) or scenario-specific advice, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server