Sets a paired host as the default for subsequent calls in the current session and returns its system information.
Make a host the default for later calls in this session and return its system_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Name of a paired host (see list_hosts). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the change persists as a session default for subsequent calls, not just this one. It also discloses that system_info is returned, though it says nothing about failure modes for an unknown/unpaired host.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, its persistent scope, and its return value with no filler.
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 one-parameter tool this covers the essential behavior: the session-level side effect and that system_info comes back. Return contents are unspecified, but with no output schema a brief hint is a reasonable level of detail.
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 coverage is 100% and the host parameter is documented there with a pointer to list_hosts for valid names. The description adds no further detail on the parameter (e.g., case sensitivity or accepted formats), so the 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?
States a specific verb+resource (make a host the default) plus the return value, and makes the session-scoped nature of the effect explicit. It does not name list_hosts as the contrasting retrieval tool in the description itself, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
'for later calls in this session' implies when this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of how it relates to list_hosts. Usage must be inferred from the side-effect phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed