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 of behavioral disclosure. It successfully adds 'Risk level: low' (safety context) and specifies return values ('liveness, idle time, and uptime'), providing crucial behavioral context beyond the schema. It could be improved by mentioning whether this operation affects session state (e.g., resets idle time) or has side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second describes returns, and the third provides safety context. The description is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or wasted text despite being only three lines.

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?

For a single-parameter health check tool with an output schema (reducing the need for detailed return documentation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers risk and return semantics but leaves the critical session_id parameter undocumented. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the session_id parameter. It fails to do so, providing no information about what constitutes a valid session ID, where to obtain it (likely from ssh_list_sessions), or its format. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any documentation for the sole required parameter is a significant gap.

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 ('Health-check') and resource ('persistent SSH session') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ssh_connect, run_ssh_command, or ssh_list_sessions. It precisely defines the tool's scope as monitoring existing sessions rather than creating or using them.

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 term 'Health-check' implies usage for verifying existing session status, providing implicit context for when to use it (before relying on a session). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ssh_list_sessions or what to do if the health check fails.

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