remote-ssh-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

host_delete

Permanently removes a host entry from remote-ssh-server. Call host_list first to retrieve the uid to pass as host_id.

Instructions

Permanently delete a host entry. Call host_list first — it returns the uid of every host, and that value is what host_id expects.

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_id": "<host_id>"
    },
    "name": "host_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host_id`	Yes	Identifier of an existing host: the exact `uid` value returned by `host_list`. Call `host_list` first and pass that value unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the deletion is permanent, which is the single most important trait. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether dependent resources (credentials, SSH configs) are removed, or whether confirmation/undo exists — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing: the first establishes the destructive action, the second the required acquisition path for the identifier. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and irreversibility but leaves the agent uninformed about permissions and side effects on related resources. Adequate but with clear gaps on exactly the dimensions annotations would normally supply.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already states it is the exact uid returned by host_list. The description's cross-reference merely restates that, adding no new syntax, format, or validation detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a host entry") and the adverb "permanently" conveys irreversibility up front. It is trivially separable from host_create, host_update, and host_list in the sibling set.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: call host_list first to obtain the uid that host_id expects. It does not name any alternative or when-not case (e.g., use host_update to modify instead of delete), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server