SSH MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses critical destructive behavior ('overwrites') and transport method ('SFTP') since no annotations are provided. However, it omits important behavioral details: whether parent directories are created if missing, authentication failure modes, atomicity of the write operation, and encoding handling.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded action verb immediately establishes purpose. No filler words or redundant explanations. Every word 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?

Minimal but functional for a file write operation with well-documented schema. However, for a 7-parameter destructive operation with complex authentication options (key vs password) and no output schema, the description lacks important operational context such as directory creation behavior, permission defaults, and error conditions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema documents all 7 parameters (host, port, username, privateKeyPath, password, path, content) adequately. The description references 'content' which aligns with the schema, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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?

States specific verb ('Write'), resource ('file on a remote host'), and protocol ('via SFTP'). The phrase 'Creates or overwrites' clearly distinguishes this from append operations and clarifies destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'ssh_upload' (which likely transfers local files versus writing string content).

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 'Creates or overwrites' clause provides implicit guidance on idempotent usage (use when you want to replace file contents entirely). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'ssh_upload' for local file transfers, or prerequisites like connection requirements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.