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 disclosing behavioral traits. It successfully adds critical security context: authentication level requirements and explicit 'Risk level: low' classification. It could be improved by mentioning idempotency or caching behavior, but covers the essential safety profile.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by authentication context and risk classification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler content.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with an output schema present (making return value description redundant), the description is complete. It appropriately focuses on security context (auth and risk level), which is critical for SSH infrastructure tools, rather than repeating structural information available in the schema.

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 tool has zero parameters (empty schema), which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or expected in the description text.

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 uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'allowed SSH hosts' and explicitly scopes the output to 'metadata (labels, roles, description)'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_host_facts (which likely retrieves detailed facts for a specific host) and run_ssh_command (execution).

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 clear context about authentication requirements ('No authentication required beyond basic identity'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites for invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a perfect score.

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