Create a new RSA or DSA SSH keypair directly on the cPanel server, specifying key name, bit length, and optional passphrase for secure access.
Generate a new RSA or DSA SSH keypair directly on the cPanel server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bits | No | Key length in bits | 2048 |
| name | Yes | Name/identifier for the new SSH key | |
| key_type | No | Cryptographic key type | rsa |
| passphrase | No | Passphrase to protect the private key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. It does not say whether the private key material is returned in the response (critical for a keypair-creation tool), whether an empty passphrase yields an unencrypted key, where the key is stored, or whether the operation is reversible via delete_ssh_key.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral details are missing rather than a sign of tight editing.
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?
This is a credential-creating mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back (public key only? private key? fingerprint?) and whether the key is auto-authorized. None of that is present, leaving a significant gap for a security-sensitive 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (bits, name, key_type, passphrase) are already documented with enums and defaults. The description only echoes the key_type values already in the schema and adds no meaning about naming conventions or passphrase implications. Baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Generate a new RSA or DSA SSH keypair") plus the location of the operation ("directly on the cPanel server"). It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sibling import_ssh_key, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (SSH must be enabled on the account, key count limits), and no mention of alternatives such as import_ssh_key for an existing key or list_ssh_keys to check for duplicates. The agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.