Report the target host identity and tool details without including any address. Use it to verify SSH session context before running commands.
Report what the target host is and what this tool is, without any address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| key_filename | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this opens a network connection, what credentials are needed, whether it mutates state, or what errors occur on failure. 'Without any address' is confusing rather than informative.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is structurally compact, but the sentence is under-specified and cryptic rather than concise — brevity is not earning its place here.
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?
An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, but for a 5-parameter tool with credential-bearing inputs and no annotations, the description omits every operational detail an agent needs: auth requirements, connection behavior, and parameter meaning.
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?
Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain that host is required, nor what port, username, password, or key_filename do, nor that they form an SSH-style credential set. The phrase 'without any address' actively muddies the meaning of the required host parameter.
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?
The verb 'Report' plus 'what the target host is' hints at host identification, but 'what this tool is' and 'without any address' are cryptic and do not clearly state what probing actually produces. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_connection_health_report or get_session_diagnostics, which sound like the same diagnostic territory.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative. With 21 sibling tools covering connections, diagnostics, and sessions, the agent has no basis to choose probe over any of them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.