SSH-PowerShell MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes commands via SSH with key authentication, implying mutation and potential security/permission needs, but doesn't cover execution timeouts, error handling, output format, or side effects. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 this is a command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, stderr, exit code), error conditions, security implications, or execution environment. For a tool that can have significant side effects, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying SSH key usage relates to keyPath. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Ejecutar comandos') and target ('en máquinas remotas vía SSH'), specifying the authentication method ('usando clave SSH'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like powershell_execute (different protocol) and ssh_keyscan/ssh_scan (different operations). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of commands or their scope, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like powershell_execute or ssh_keyscan. It mentions SSH key usage but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. Without any when/when-not context, this scores a 2.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.