MCP SSH Orchestrator

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes. ssh_cancel and ssh_cancel_async_task could cause confusion, but their names and descriptions distinguish them. The three task retrieval tools (output, result, status) are well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent ssh_verb_noun pattern with underscores. Naming is predictable and uniform, making it easy for agents to infer tool purpose.
Tool Count4/5
13 tools cover the core SSH orchestration functionality without being excessive. A few additional operations (e.g., adding hosts) could be justified, but the current count is well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key workflows: listing/configuring hosts, running commands (sync/async/tag-based), and monitoring tasks. Missing host CRUD operations, but the domain appears focused on execution rather than inventory management.
Average 3/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Health check.' with no details on side effects, output, or safety (e.g., read-only vs destructive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two words), but under-specified. It does not earn its place as it provides insufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema provided, and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to interpret the health check.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Health check.' is vague but not a tautology of the tool name. It implies a connectivity test but lacks specificity about what resource is checked or how it differs from sibling tools like ssh_describe_host.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a cancellation request is sent but does not explain if the task is immediately cancelled, if it's asynchronous, or what the return value indicates. Important side effects or permissions are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial details.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain cancellation behavior, expected output, or prerequisites. More context is needed for effective tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'task_id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what a task ID is, how to obtain it, or its required format. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Request cancellation for a running task' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ssh_cancel_async_task', which may have similar functionality.
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 versus alternatives like 'ssh_cancel_async_task' or other ssh tools. The description gives no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (cancel) without explaining side effects, whether cancellation is guaranteed, or what happens to the task (e.g., cleanup, error states). The agent lacks insight into the tool's behavior beyond the surface.
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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, it may be too terse given the lack of parameter and behavioral details, but conciseness is a strength here even if completeness suffers.
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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description should at least mention the return value or how to obtain the task_id. It does not, leaving the agent without essential context for proper usage. The minimal nature makes it incomplete for effective selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (task_id) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. The agent must guess the format or origin of the task ID, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 tool cancels a running async task. It identifies the verb (cancel) and resource (async task), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'ssh_cancel', which might have a different scope, but the specificity to async tasks provides clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_cancel or when cancellation is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the task needing to be in a running state, or any fail conditions. The description leaves the agent to infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only preview ('show') that checks policy, but since no annotations are provided, it should more explicitly state that no command is executed and that the tool is safe and idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (1 sentence) but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits key details about parameters and output. It is not overly verbose, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
With 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is insufficient. It should explain the preview nature, the condition of policy check, and what the output contains. The current description leaves many gaps.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the purpose of 'alias' or 'command'. The name and context hint at their roles, but explicit semantic help is missing. Baseline would be 4 if schema covered, but here it does not.
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 tool shows what would be executed and whether policy allows, distinguishing it from execution tools like ssh_run. However, it does not mention the input parameters (alias, command) that define what is being planned.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings like ssh_run, nor does it mention prerequisites or that it should be used before execution.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'reload configuration files' without describing side effects (e.g., service restart), permission requirements, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence). While no extraneous information, the description is too minimal and could incorporate more context without becoming verbose.
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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description fails to mention return values, error conditions, or what configuration files are reloaded. Leaves gaps for an agent.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter meaning but that is acceptable since none exist.
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 states the tool reloads configuration files. While the verb+resource is clear, it does not specify which configuration files (likely SSH) nor differentiate from siblings like ssh_run or ssh_ping.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses policies, network checks, progress tracking, timeout, and cancellability, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits safety aspects (destructive potential?), required permissions, and failure behavior. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Single sentence is very concise, but it packs a long list of features ('policy, network checks, progress, timeout, and cancellation') which reduces readability. Could be split for clarity.
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 existence of siblings like `ssh_run_async`, `ssh_plan`, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides moderate context. It does not clarify the relationship to these siblings or when to choose this tool over others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters (`alias`, `command`) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of these parameters; it does not clarify what `alias` refers to (host alias?) or how `command` is used. Schema already lists names, but description fails to add semantics.
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 ('Execute SSH command') and lists notable features (policy, network checks, progress, timeout, cancellation). It distinguishes from sibling `ssh_run_async` by implication (synchronous with timeout/cancellation), but does not explicitly differentiate from `ssh_run_on_tag` or justify when to use each.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `ssh_run_async` or `ssh_plan`. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases are mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'with network checks' but does not explain what these checks entail, their impact on execution, or any failure modes. This is insufficient for understanding behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, avoid fluff. However, it is too concise given the lack of parameter details and no annotations; it omits essential context that a longer description could provide.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and a hidden output schema. The description does not explain return values, error handling, or the network check process. It is incomplete for effective use by an AI agent.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only hints at 'tag' selecting hosts and 'command' being the command. It does not explain the format, allowed values, or semantics (e.g., what kind of tag, how multiple hosts are handled). Minimal added value over the schema titles.
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 tool's action: 'Execute SSH command on all hosts with a tag', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_run (targets a single host) and ssh_run_async (async variant).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_run for a single host). The phrase 'with a tag' implies grouping, but there is no when-not-to-use or mention of other tools.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool gets output lines, but does not explain what 'recent' means, whether it blocks, how it handles large outputs, or any side effects.
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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, providing the core purpose immediately without 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the output contains (e.g., format, line numbers). It is incomplete for a tool that retrieves streaming output, lacking critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain task_id or max_lines beyond the schema's defaults and titles, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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 tool's function: 'Get recent output lines from running or completed task.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_get_task_result and ssh_get_task_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at usage for streaming output ('enables streaming output visibility') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List configured hosts' with no mention of read-only nature, side effects, or any constraints. The agent has no information about the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear. Every word earns its place.
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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the source of 'configured hosts' (e.g., from a configuration file) and doesn't clarify the scope. The agent might need more context for proper use.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema, fully described by its absence). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per rubric, 0 params defaults to baseline 4.
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 'List configured hosts' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool ssh_describe_host (which describes a single host). However, it does not explicitly define 'configured hosts' and could be more precise about the scope.
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?
There are no usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_run or ssh_ping. The agent receives no guidance on context or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return of a task_id and polling, but fails to describe side effects, error handling, destructive potential, or resource cleanup. This leaves significant gaps for an async operation.
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 concise at three sentences with front-loaded purpose. However, it could benefit from including parameter details without sacrificing brevity.
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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic workflow but omits parameter explanations and important behavioral context, making it adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the two parameters ('alias' and 'command'). An agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description alone.
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 tool's function: 'Start SSH command asynchronously', with verb 'Start' and resource 'SSH command', and distinguishes from synchronous alternatives like ssh_run and monitoring tools like ssh_get_task_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: 'Returns immediately with task_id for polling' and directs to use downstream tools for monitoring. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but implies synchronous alternative exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits like safety (read-only vs mutation), authentication needs, or error handling. As no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden; it mentions the return format but omits critical context about side effects or constraints.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but could include more context without becoming verbose, such as parameter explanation or usage hints.
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 (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the role of the alias parameter or what happens when omitted, which an agent might need for proper invocation.
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 single parameter 'alias' is not explained in the description; its purpose (identifying the host) must be inferred. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the parameter name and default value.
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 'Return host definition in JSON.' clearly states the verb (return), resource (host definition), and output format (JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_list_hosts which lists hosts, and ssh_run which executes commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 ssh_list_hosts. It implies usage for retrieving a specific host's details but does not specify prerequisites or context preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns (state, progress, elapsed time, output summary) but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It is adequate but could be more explicit about being a read-only operation.
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 two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It meets conciseness and structure expectations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the key outputs. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details. It is nearly complete.
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 does not mention the 'task_id' parameter at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 tool gets the status of an async task, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'status of an async task'. It also mentions SEP-1686 compliance, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_get_task_output or ssh_get_task_result.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an async task ID is available, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the return includes output, exit code, and metadata, which covers the main behavioral traits of a getter. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or potential errors (e.g., if task is not completed).
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key return details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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 that the tool is a simple getter with an output schema (signaled), the description covers purpose and return values. However, it lacks parameter details (task_id) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the task_id parameter at all. It provides no context about what task_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to the schema (which has no description).
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 tool gets the final result of a completed task, specifies SEP-1686 compliance, and lists return contents (output, exit code, metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_get_task_output and ssh_get_task_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used only for completed tasks, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings (e.g., ssh_get_task_output, ssh_get_task_status) or when not to call it. The word 'completed' provides some context but lacks alternatives.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ssh-orchestrator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samerfarida/mcp-ssh-orchestrator/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samerfarida/mcp-ssh-orchestrator)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ssh-orchestrator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samerfarida/mcp-ssh-orchestrator/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samerfarida/mcp-ssh-orchestrator)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/samerfarida/mcp-ssh-orchestrator'

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