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 non-blocking behavior, immediate return of job_id, security model (template-only), and risk level (medium, requires confirmation). Could improve by mentioning job persistence or timeout 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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, workflow tools, security context, and risk level. Front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured.

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?

Has output schema (per context signals), so omitting detailed return value explanation is acceptable. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and only 'template' mentioned in description, the parameter documentation is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 mentions 'template command' implying template_id's purpose, but fails to explain host_id (hostname vs UUID?) or params structure (key-value substitutions?). With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate more for the three 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?

States specific action (Start), resource (template command), and key behavioral trait (non-blocking/background). Distinguishes from sibling 'run_ssh_command' by emphasizing the async nature and immediate job_id return.

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 names three related tools for the job lifecycle workflow: 'poll_background_job to read output', 'list_background_jobs to see all jobs', and 'cancel_background_job to stop'. Also references sibling 'run_ssh_command' for security model comparison.

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