Retrieve real-time SSH connection details for an embedded board, including target host, monitored log file, and buffer metrics. Use board_id to get current status.
Get real-time SSH connection status, target host, monitored log file, and buffer metrics.
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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get real-time' indicates a read-only, live query, which is useful. However, it does not state prerequisites such as whether an SSH connection must already exist, nor does it disclose possible side effects or error behaviors.
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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a single Args line. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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 simple one-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and output categories. It does not fully explain when to choose this over sibling tools or what happens if no SSH connection is active, but these are minor gaps for a status-query tool.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by defining board_id as the board identifier and giving a concrete example ('e1_linux_host'). This is sufficient for the single required parameter, though it could specify further constraints or allowed values.
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?
States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'SSH connection status', and lists distinct output categories: target host, monitored log file, and buffer metrics. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ssh_connect, ssh_tail, and ssh_exec, which are actions rather than status retrieval.
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 implies use when SSH connection status or related metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as ssh_tail or ssh_exec. The intended context is inferable from the description, but no direct routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.