Start an SSH tunnel (local, remote, or dynamic) to forward ports between your machine and a remote host.
Avvia un tunnel SSH (kind L/R/D).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bind | No | localhost | |
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| alias | Yes | ||
| local_port | Yes | ||
| remote_host | No | ||
| remote_port | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that a tunnel is started, with no disclosure of authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., port binding, persistence), error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is essentially no behavioral context beyond the name.
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-sentence fragment is short but under-specified rather than truly concise. It front-loads the main action, but omits all essential details about parameters and behavior that an agent would need, so the brevity comes at the cost of utility.
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?
Given 7 parameters, 3 required, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and 42 sibling tools, the description is drastically incomplete. While an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 7 parameters. The description adds meaning only for "kind" by listing L/R/D, but leaves alias, local_port, remote_host, remote_port, bind, and name completely undocumented. This partial hint does not compensate for the severe coverage 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 ("Avvia") and resource ("tunnel SSH"), and hints at the kind variants (L/R/D). It clearly differentiates from siblings like stop_tunnel or list_tunnels by the action itself, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or scope details.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., SSH alias must exist), and no mention of alternatives like stop_tunnel or tunnel_health. The description merely says what it does, not when or why to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.