Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ssh

mcp-ssh

by zhouxiangjing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

append_file

Append content to a remote file over SSH. Provide the absolute file path and text to add, optionally selecting a configured host.

Instructions

Append content to a remote file.

Args: path: Absolute path to the file. content: Text content to append. host_name: Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.

Returns: Success message or error details.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
contentYes
host_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 burden. It explains arguments and return value but does not disclose whether the file is created if missing, permission requirements, or side effects. It only says 'Returns: Success message or error details' which is minimal.

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?

Description is concise and structured with Args and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, but the Args/Returns formatting adds a few lines; still efficient.

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 simple append tool, the description provides core information. However, it omits important edge cases such as file creation behavior, permission requirements, and error conditions beyond generic error details. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has no property descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly defines path, content, and host_name, including the host_name default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Append content to a remote file' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_file and read_file, which have different operations.

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. It does not mention that append is for adding to existing files or that write_file overwrites. The implied usage is not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools