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 effectively communicates authorization requirements (ADMIN role), prerequisites (prior approval), risk profile (high), and operational characteristics (signed by local CA, tight TTL). It appropriately signals this is a sensitive write operation.

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 structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by implementation details, requirements, and risk assessment. Every sentence delivers unique value without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (5 parameters, security-sensitive mutation) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers operational context and risk. The main gap is parameter documentation, which should have been addressed given the 0% schema coverage.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially succeeds by implying semantics for 'user_id' ('for a user'), 'ttl_seconds' ('tight TTL'), and 'approval_request_id' ('prior approval'). However, it fails to explain 'principals' (SSH-specific concept) or 'justification' (audit purpose), leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('short-lived SSH certificate'), clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_ssh_key' by specifying 'certificate' and from 'revoke_cert' by specifying 'Issue'.

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 states prerequisites ('Requires ADMIN role and prior approval'), implying the workflow sequence with 'request_approval'. It also flags 'Risk level: high' to guide cautious usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and 'add_ssh_key' for different authentication scenarios.

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