Sign a provided SSH public key into a short-lived certificate to authorize access to a sandbox via the SSH gateway.
Issue a short-lived SSH certificate for a public key, authorizing SSH access to a sandbox via the SSH gateway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| public_key | Yes | The SSH public key to sign into a certificate. | |
| session_id | Yes | Sandbox session id (UUID), from tenki_create_sandbox or tenki_list_sandboxes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the certificate is short-lived and access flows through the SSH gateway, but it does not disclose details such as certificate lifetime, return value, or side effects beyond issuing the certificate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 two-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description conveys enough about purpose and mechanism for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema means the return value is not explicitly described, but this is a minor gap given the otherwise clear action and inputs.
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 already covers both parameters fully at 100% coverage, describing public_key as the SSH public key and session_id as the sandbox session UUID. The description restates the connection to SSH access but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Issue') with a specific resource ('short-lived SSH certificate') and states the intended outcome ('authorizing SSH access to a sandbox via the SSH gateway'). This clearly differentiates it from nearby siblings like tenki_update_ssh_keys and tenki_list_ssh_gateways.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for authorizing SSH access to a sandbox through the SSH gateway, and the 'short-lived' qualifier implies it is for temporary access rather than persistent key management. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it is one step below explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.