Store SSH connection details—host, username, port, and key—as a reusable profile to avoid re-entering them for future connections.
Save an SSH connection profile for quick reuse
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Remote hostname or IP | |
| name | Yes | Profile name | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | Yes | SSH username | |
| identity_file | No | Path to SSH private key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether saving a profile with an existing name overwrites or errors, where the profile is persisted, or whether the private key path is validated or the key itself stored. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of what leaves the behavioral questions unanswered.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover collision behavior, persistence scope, and typical follow-up (ssh_execute). None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict what a successful or failed save looks like.
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 all five parameters (name, host, username, port, identity_file) are documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about defaults, accepted formats, or the significance of optional fields such as identity_file.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Save an SSH connection profile") plus a purpose ("quick reuse"), which is clearly distinct from ssh_execute and list_ssh_profiles. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the boundary (persisting a profile vs. running a connection), so it falls short of a 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?
There is no statement of when to call this instead of ssh_execute, save_workspace_profile, or list_ssh_profiles, and no prerequisites or preconditions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the persistence step before running ssh_execute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.