Run a command across multiple SSH hosts via tmux, wait for completion, and collect output from each. Use it to broadcast tasks and gather results in one call.
Broadcast tmux su più host con attesa di completamento e raccolta output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aliases | Yes | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It discloses that the tool waits for completion and collects output, which is useful behavioral context beyond the name. However, it omits timeout behavior, failure handling across hosts, and any safety/permission context, so important traits remain undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the parameter/usage gaps scored elsewhere.
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 multi-host execution tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the core action and output collection, but omits parameter semantics, timeout/failure behavior, and guidance on when to use it versus similar siblings.
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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'Su più host' loosely implies the aliases target list and 'attesa' hints at timeout, but there is no explicit meaning for aliases, command, or timeout, so it barely compensates for the schema gap.
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 description states a specific verb ('Broadcast'), resource ('tmux'), scope ('su più host'), and behavior (wait for completion, collect output). It implicitly differentiates from plain 'broadcast' by adding wait/output collection, but it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state what it is not, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Siblings such as broadcast, run_command_all, and run_and_wait exist, but the description does not say when broadcast_wait should be chosen over them, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.