termix_credentials_validate_ssh_key_pairValidate an SSH key pair by checking if the private key matches the public key. Use it to confirm credentials are correctly paired before connecting or debugging authentication issues.
Validate SSH key pair. Validates if a given SSH private key and public key match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicKey | No | ||
| privateKey | No | ||
| keyPassword | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the simple operation. It doesn't explain what happens on mismatch (e.g., error vs boolean return), or whether the keyPassword is required for encrypted keys. Without annotation coverage of specifics, the description carries the burden but fails to disclose return behavior or failure modes.
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 very brief (two sentences) and to the point, but it is under-specified. The first sentence repeats the title entirely, which is redundant, while the second adds minimal new information. It could be more concise by eliminating the tautology and adding meaningful detail.
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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential details: what the response looks like (boolean, error), how keyPassword is used, and any preconditions (e.g., key formats). This is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional probing.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It names no parameters, only mentions 'private key' and 'public key', leaving keyPassword's purpose ambiguous. No syntax, format, or optionality details are provided, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 tool validates whether a given SSH private key and public key match, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling credential tools like detect_ssh_key_type or generate_public_key_private_key. It uses a clear verb and resource, though it could be more explicit that it's a check/verification operation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_ssh_key_type or generate_public_key_private_key. The description implies a validation use case but doesn't explicitly state when an agent should call this versus other credential tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.