VPS MCP Server

Does 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. It states the action ('Change') but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), whether it affects other operations, or any side effects like permission requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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 the complexity of a directory change operation on a VPS, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to cover important aspects like error handling, success indicators, or interaction with sibling tools (e.g., needing 'connect_vps' first). This is inadequate for a mutation tool in this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'Target directory path.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Change') and resource ('current working directory on the VPS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_directory' or 'create_directory', which would require more specific language about what distinguishes this operation from those.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be connected via 'connect_vps'), exclusions (e.g., invalid paths), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_directory' for new directories or 'get_current_directory' for checking the current location.

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