SSH MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses destructive effects (PEM files deleted), side effects (added to revocation list), authorization requirements (ADMIN role), and workflow constraints (prior approval). Strong coverage of operational behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear paragraph breaks: action statement, side effects, requirements, and risk. Every sentence conveys distinct information (effects, auth, risk). Efficient length with no redundancy.

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 high-risk administrative tool with output schema present (no return value documentation needed). Covers authorization, side effects, and risk. Minor gap: could explicitly document the three parameters given 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 has 0% description coverage. Description implies 'cert_id' through the revocation action and 'approval_request_id' through 'prior approval' mention, but does not explicitly document parameters or explain the 'reason' field. Provides baseline semantic context for 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?

Opens with specific verb+resource ('Revoke an issued SSH certificate') and distinguishes from sibling 'issue_cert'. Clearly defines scope by stating revoked certs are added to revocation list and PEM files deleted.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires ADMIN role and prior approval') and risk context ('Risk level: high'), which guides when to invoke. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling alternatives like 'issue_cert' or 'remove_ssh_key'.

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