SSH MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: high risk level, that it grants execution permission, and two-party mode requirements. Does not mention if approval is reversible or immediate side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, operational constraint second, risk warning third. No redundant or filler text. Appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a high-risk mutation tool given the output schema exists (covering return values). However, gaps remain: with 0% schema coverage, parameters lack documentation in both schema and description, and there's no mention of prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining tokens from list_pending_approvals).

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% (no parameter descriptions), yet the description adds no semantic information about 'request_id' or 'approval_token'. Relies entirely on parameter names being self-explanatory, providing no context on where the approval_token originates or its format.

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 the specific action (approve) and resource (pending approval request) clearly. Distinguishes sufficiently from sibling 'request_approval' through the opposite verb, though could explicitly reference the relationship.

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?

Provides a specific operational constraint ('In two-party mode, the approver must be a different user from the requester'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites like obtaining the approval_token.

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