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 and successfully discloses key behaviors: the incremental nature of returns ('new stdout since last poll'), the read-only safety profile ('Risk level: low'), and the specific return contents (stdout, status, exit code). Minor gaps remain regarding error cases or rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded ('Read accumulated output...'), followed by return value specifics, then risk classification. Each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter polling tool. The description explains return values even though an output schema exists (helpful redundancy). Minor gap: does not mention that job_id typically comes from run_ssh_command_background or list_background_jobs.

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 (only title 'Job Id'). The description mentions operating on a 'background job' which implicitly maps to the job_id parameter, but does not explicitly describe the parameter semantics, format, or where to obtain valid job IDs.

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 (Read) and resource (accumulated output and status of a background job). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cancel_background_job (mutation vs read) and list_background_jobs (listing all vs polling specific job state).

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 phrase 'new stdout since last poll' implies iterative usage for monitoring, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_background_jobs, or that it should be used repeatedly to track jobs started by run_ssh_command_background.

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