Import an SSH public or private key into cPanel by providing a key name and key content, with optional RSA or DSA type selection.
Import an SSH public or private key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key content | |
| name | Yes | Key name/identifier | |
| type | No | Key type | rsa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Import' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether an existing key with the same name is overwritten), authentication requirements, validation behavior, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and contains no redundant information.
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 tool's low complexity (3 params, no output schema) but the absence of annotations, the description should at least state whether the import is additive or overwrites existing keys, and what the expected outcome is. The current description is a bare action statement, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.
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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal nuance by clarifying that the key can be public or private, which is not explicit in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb ('Import') and resource ('SSH public or private key'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ssh_keys, delete_ssh_key, and authorize_ssh_key. It unambiguously states the action and object.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related tools for managing keys, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description is purely functional without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.