SSH MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully states the operation is safe (risk level: low), returns a request_id and one-time approval_token, and specifies the token presentation requirement. Could improve by mentioning expiration or who can approve, but covers core behavioral traits well.

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?

Five sentences with zero waste: purpose front-loaded, followed by return values, workflow steps, and risk assessment. Each sentence earns its place. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The approval workflow is conceptually complete and output schema exists (reducing need for return value description). However, the complete absence of parameter documentation for 4 fields—especially 2 required ones—creates a critical gap for an agent trying to construct valid invocations.

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% (only titles provided). The description mentions 'Tier 2 operation' which gives semantic context to the 'action' parameter, but provides no guidance on 'justification' format, 'host_id' usage, or 'ticket_ref' purpose. With zero schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for undocumented required parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool requests approval for 'privileged (Tier 2) operations,' using specific verb (request) and resource (approval). The 'Tier 2' qualifier and distinction from sibling 'approve_request' (via workflow description) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Excellent workflow guidance: explains the token must be presented to an approver and request_id passed to the privileged tool. Describes the multi-step process clearly. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to sibling 'approve_request,' but the flow description provides strong implicit guidance.

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