Connect to a remote embedded board via SSH to start continuous log streaming. Provide a board ID to begin receiving real-time logs.
Connect to remote board via SSH and start continuous log streaming (e.g. tail -f enor.log).
Args: board_id: The identifier of the board (e.g. 'e1_linux_host')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Continuous log streaming' implies a long-running operation, but it does not disclose whether the call blocks, whether an SSH session remains open, how to stop it, or whether any cleanup/release is required.
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?
Two sentences convey the action, purpose, and example parameter with zero filler. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns 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?
Although the signature is simple, the description leaves critical context unclear: session lifecycle, blocking behavior, and when to choose this over ssh_tail or serial_connect. The output schema exists, but behavioral and routing context are missing.
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 single parameter board_id is described as 'identifier of the board' with a concrete example ('e1_linux_host'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is essential and sufficient for the only 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?
Description states a specific action ('Connect to remote board via SSH') plus the purpose ('start continuous log streaming') with a concrete example. It clearly differs from serial_* siblings, though it is not explicitly differentiated from ssh_tail, which may have overlapping behavior.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of ssh_tail, ssh_exec, or serial_connect. The SSH mention provides an implicit hint, but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.