termix_tunnels_get_tunnel_status_nameRetrieve the current status of a specific SSH tunnel by providing its name. Use this tool to check whether a named tunnel is active or inactive without scanning the full list.
Get tunnel status by name. Retrieves the status of a specific SSH tunnel by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tunnelName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention what the status contains, whether it can be cached/stale, or what happens for a nonexistent tunnel name.
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 short, but the second sentence largely repeats the first sentence and the title. It adds only 'specific SSH tunnel' and doesn't fully earn its place.
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 only one parameter and strong read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to make the call. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'status' looks like or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty about the return value.
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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It does clarify that the single parameter is a tunnel's name, but it doesn't say where the name comes from, acceptable formats, or behavior when the name is unknown. This is minimal but sufficient for one obvious string parameter.
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 operation (retrieving status) and scope (a specific SSH tunnel by name), which distinguishes it from the broader sibling termix_tunnels_get_all_tunnel_statuses. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or call out the differentiation, so it falls short of the top score.
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 phrase 'by its name' implies this tool is for a single named tunnel rather than all tunnel statuses, but the description never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as termix_tunnels_get_all_tunnel_statuses. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.