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 'Risk level: low (read-only)' and the allowed_paths access restriction. However, it omits error behavior for invalid paths or connection failures.

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 efficiently convey the core action, access constraints, and safety profile without redundancy. The most critical information ('List files...') is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with zero parameter schema coverage and no mention of the authentication/connection model (host_id/session_id relationship), the description leaves significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'remote path' maps to the remote_path parameter, the description fails to explain host_id (likely referencing list_hosts) or session_id (optional connection reuse), leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('files and directories at a remote path'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like sftp_delete, transfer_file, and run_ssh_command.

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 description provides the important constraint 'Only paths within the configured allowed_paths are accessible,' which defines operational boundaries, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like transfer_file or sftp_delete.

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