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 indicates the read-only nature and risk level, but lacks details about log content, retention periods, or pagination behavior beyond the 'last N' limitation.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by safety metadata. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or waste.

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 (1 optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides minimum viable information. However, with zero schema annotations, it should explicitly document the parameter's default value and optional status.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially compensates by mapping 'last N' to the parameter's purpose, but fails to document that the parameter is optional, has a default value of 50, or specify valid ranges/constraints.

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 (Return) and resource (audit log entries), distinguishing it from sibling SSH and approval management tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/retrieve operations like list_background_jobs.

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 safety information ('Read-only', 'Risk level: low') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions where it might not be appropriate.

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