SSH MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, but description compensates well with explicit risk disclosure ('Risk level: low', 'safe', 'no secrets'). Clearly signals this is a read-only operation that doesn't expose sensitive data.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and safety constraints. The em-dash effectively separates the scope from the safety assertion.

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 single-parameter tool with existing output schema (no return value description needed). However, the undocumented host_id parameter leaves a significant gap given the schema lacks descriptions.

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 has 0% description coverage (host_id lacks description), and the description fails to compensate. No mention of what host_id represents (UUID, hostname, IP) or its relationship to the operation.

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?

Excellent specificity with verb 'Get', resource 'host metadata', and concrete examples (OS, uptime, kernel). The 'safe' qualifier effectively distinguishes this from sibling execution tools like run_ssh_command.

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?

Implies usage through 'safe' and 'no secrets' constraints, suggesting when to prefer this over command execution tools. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., vs run_ssh_command).

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