lucky_upsert_terminal_connectionCreate or update a terminal connection by name, storing host, user, port, and optional password, with password redacted in responses.
Idempotent by name. Stores host/user/port; password is optional and will be redacted in responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| host | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| user | No | ||
| password | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: idempotency keyed by name, optional password, and password redaction in responses. It does not conflict with the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations. It could disclose what an update overwrites, but the main behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Two concise sentences with the most important behavior ('Idempotent by name.') front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema fields.
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?
The definition covers the core upsert semantics, but for a six-parameter tool with no output schema it leaves gaps: the meaning of key, name's role, update/replace behavior, and the response shape. It is workable but not complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it only names host, user, port, and password. It omits name despite it being required and the idempotency key, and also omits key, giving no format or semantics for those parameters.
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 title and description clearly identify this as a create-or-update operation on a Lucky SSH/terminal connection, and 'Idempotent by name' pins down the upsert semantics. It is easily distinguished from the read-only sibling lucky_list_terminal_connections.
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?
'Idempotent by name' supplies the key usage rule: call with an existing name to update and a new name to create. It does not explicitly say to use the list tool for read-only scenarios, but the title and idempotency wording make the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.