ssh_downloadDownload a single file from an allowed remote root on an HPC cluster to a local path, overwriting the destination. Use this to retrieve job results or project files over SSH/SFTP.
Download one regular file between configured allowed roots, replacing the destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_path | Yes | ||
| remote_path | Yes | ||
| server_alias | No | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: it overwrites ('replacing the destination') and it handles only one regular file (not directories, globs, or symlinks). However, it says nothing about authentication via server_alias, permission requirements, error behavior for disallowed paths, or whether the remote file is modified or removed.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and its scope before the overwrite caveat. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or title.
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 three-parameter write-to-disk tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin: parameter meaning, alias/authentication expectations, and failure behavior are all absent. The overwrite and single-file constraints are the only behavioral details an agent gets beyond the bare name.
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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it never explains local_path, remote_path, or the server_alias default of 'default'. 'Configured allowed roots' weakly implies remote_path is resolved relative to a sandbox root, but no path format, direction, or alias semantics are given.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Download one regular file') and adds meaningful scope qualifiers: single file only, regular files only, and confined to configured allowed roots. It does not name or contrast with the obvious counterpart ssh_upload, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use (e.g., for directories or multiple files), and no pointer to alternatives such as remote_read or ssh_execute. The phrase 'configured allowed roots' hints at a precondition but never states the condition or the failure mode when a path falls outside those roots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.