SSH MCP Server

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 successfully communicates risk level and confirmation requirements, but omits critical operational details like whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, whether partial results are preserved, or what the output schema contains.

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 optimally concise with two information-dense sentences. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, while risk metadata follows in the second. No filler or redundant text is present.

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 simplicity (single required parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core operation and risk profile. However, completeness suffers from the lack of parameter documentation and absence of behavioral details about the cancellation mechanism itself.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (job_id has only a title). The description fails to compensate by not mentioning the parameter at all, nor explaining where to obtain valid job IDs (e.g., from list_background_jobs). While the parameter intent is inferable from the tool name, this gap leaves the agent without guidance on job_id format or source.

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 specific action (Cancel) and resource (running background job), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_background_jobs, poll_background_job, and run_ssh_command_background. However, it doesn't specify what types of background jobs (e.g., SSH commands, cert operations) are cancellable.

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 a risk level ('medium') and explicitly states that user confirmation is required, which guides cautious usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to cancel versus let jobs complete, and doesn't mention that job_id values likely come from list_background_jobs or run_ssh_command_background siblings.

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