Creates a tmux window inside a selected SSH host session using an alias and session, with an optional window name.
Crea una finestra in una sessione.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| alias | Yes | ||
| session | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Crea' implies a mutation against an existing session, but there is no mention of permissions, failure modes, what happens to the new window's state, or default naming. The behavioral picture is essentially blank.
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 single short sentence is not wasteful per se, but it is under-specified rather than concise, carrying no useful information beyond the tool name. Brevity here reflects omission, not economy.
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 values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent without prerequisites, parameter intent, or sibling routing. It is inadequate for the complexity of the operation.
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% across three parameters (name, alias, session), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. In particular the distinction between 'alias' and 'name'—and their required/optional status—is left entirely undocumented. With low coverage the description was obliged to compensate and does not.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Crea una finestra') and scopes it to a session, so the basic action is inferable. However, it is little more than a restatement of the tool name and gives no differentiation from siblings such as create_session or list_windows. Purpose is vague enough that an agent must rely on the name alone to disambiguate.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description does not tell the agent whether a session must already exist, nor route it toward create_session versus this tool. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.