Close an active SSH session to a remote host by providing its hostname and username, terminating the secure connection and freeing local resources.
Close an SSH connection to a remote host
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | IP address or hostname | |
| port | No | SSH port (default: 22) | |
| username | Yes | SSH username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (closing a connection), but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when no matching connection exists, or whether it closes one specific connection among several.
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 a single short sentence with no filler and the action verb front-loaded. It earns its place and is appropriately concise for the tool's simple scope.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is close to sufficient but leaves out useful context such as preconditions, return behavior, or error handling. A brief additional note about existing connections or failure behavior would make it fully complete.
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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (host, port, username), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the existing schema descriptions are sufficient for this simple tool.
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 uses a specific action verb ('Close') and a clear resource ('SSH connection to a remote host'), so the tool's purpose is immediately understandable. It also differentiates itself from siblings like ssh_connect, ssh_execute, and ssh_list_connections.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the inverse of ssh_connect, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an already-established connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.