MCP SSH Manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Import') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites data), requires authentication (implied by parameters but not described), has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial imports). For a database import tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Import database from SQL file') and includes relevant details (database types). However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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 complexity (database import with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like destructiveness, error handling, or output format, and while the schema documents parameters, the description fails to add crucial context for safe and effective use. For a tool with potential data mutation and no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning database types (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB), which aligns with the 'type' enum, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'drop' only applies to MongoDB) or provide additional context like file format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Import') and resource ('database from SQL file'), specifying the action and target. It also mentions supported database types (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_db_dump' (which likely exports) or 'ssh_backup_restore' (which might handle backups differently), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing SSH access, file existence on the remote server), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time data sync), or comparisons to siblings like 'ssh_db_dump' for export or 'ssh_backup_restore' for backup-related imports. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.

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