SSH MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable safety context ('Risk level: low') and resource constraints ('remaining connection slots'), but omits other behavioral details like real-time vs cached data, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. The two-line structure separates functionality from risk assessment efficiently. No sentences are wasted, though the risk level could potentially be conveyed in a single sentence with the main description.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, for a tool with many SSH-related siblings, it could better contextualize when to inspect sessions versus taking action. The mention of connection slots is a good domain-specific addition.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (vacuously). Per scoring guidelines, this warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters where none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('active SSH sessions') and adds scope detail ('remaining connection slots'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ssh_connect, run_ssh_command, and ssh_disconnect by positioning it as a passive inspection/monitoring tool.

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 implies usage through the action (listing sessions suggests monitoring or capacity checking), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention, for example, to use this before ssh_connect to verify available slots.

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