mcp-ssh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool connects and creates a session, implying a stateful operation, but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it requires authentication, if it's idempotent, or what the session entails. For a tool that likely involves network operations and state management, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no wasted verbiage, earning it a high score for efficiency.

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 complexity (SSH connection with state management), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error handling, session lifecycle, authentication requirements, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real-world context.

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 has 1 parameter (connectTimeoutMs) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what connectTimeoutMs does, its units (milliseconds), or typical values, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Подключение по SSH и создание сессии' (SSH connection and session creation). It specifies the verb ('подключение' - connection) and resource ('сессии' - session), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_disconnect or ssh_list_sessions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing credentials), when not to use it (e.g., if already connected), or how it relates to siblings like ssh_exec (which might require an active session). This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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