Run shell commands in a virtual machine over SSH to administer or modify its system, with optional sudo and output capture for controlled, potentially destructive operations.
Exécute une commande dans une VM via SSH ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sudo | No | ||
| user | No | ||
| capture | No | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| vm_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description repeats that warning, which is redundant. However, it adds the SSH connection mechanism, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist. The description does not disclose other behaviors like privilege escalation or output capture, which are in the schema but not elaborated.
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 a clear warning. It is appropriately concise and avoids redundancy. The warning is placed prominently. However, given the destructive nature, more explanatory content might be warranted, but the description is structurally sound.
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?
The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and is destructive. The description lacks parameter explanations, usage guidance, and behavioral details beyond SSH. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the impact of destructive operations. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention any of the six parameters (vm_name, command, sudo, user, capture, timeout) or their roles. The schema itself provides only names and types, no descriptions. An agent cannot infer what 'sudo' or 'capture' do from the description.
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 clearly states the verb ('Exécute') and resource ('une commande dans une VM') and method ('via SSH'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_start, vm_stop, vm_destroy by focusing on arbitrary command execution. The warning about destructiveness adds a clear safety signal.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name that this is for running commands, but there is no explicit routing or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.