SSH MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses validation behavior ('Validates key format and strength'), policy enforcement ('Enforces TTL limits'), authorization requirements ('ADMIN role'), and risk profile ('high'). Missing idempotency guarantees and specific side effects beyond registration.

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?

Five distinct sentences, each earning its place: action, validation, enforcement, authorization, risk. Information is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically from functional description to security constraints.

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?

While the description covers behavioral and security context well for a complex mutation tool, and an output schema exists (relieving return value documentation), the 0% parameter schema coverage combined with insufficient parameter explanation in the description leaves significant gaps in required documentation for a 5-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily. It provides context for 'ttl_seconds' (TTL limits), 'approval_request_id' (prior approval), and 'public_key' (key format validation), but fails to explain required parameter 'user_name' or optional 'reason' field semantics beyond their titles.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Register[s] a new SSH public key' with specific scope (policy checks included). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'remove_ssh_key' and relates to approval workflow tools (approve_request, request_approval) by mentioning registration vs. removal and approval requirements.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires ADMIN role and prior approval' and 'Risk level: high'. This signals when the tool is appropriate (admin tasks with existing approval) and implies the workflow sequence (approval first), though it doesn't explicitly state 'do not use without approval' or contrast with non-admin alternatives.

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