remote-ssh-mcp

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 but offers minimal information. It states the upload action but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (implied by SFTP but not detailed), potential file overwriting behavior, error handling, or performance considerations like transfer speed or size limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to principles of conciseness and clear structure.

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 tool's complexity (involving file transfer over SFTP with session management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, security implications, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'ssh_connect' for session setup. This leaves too many unknowns for effective use in a broader context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear definitions for all three parameters ('session_id', 'local_path', 'remote_path'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 action ('Upload') and the resource ('a local file to remote server via SFTP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scp_download' by specifying the direction of transfer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tools like 'ssh_exec' that might also involve file operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like needing an active session (implied by 'session_id' but not stated), when to choose SFTP over other methods, or how it relates to siblings such as 'scp_download' for reverse operations. This lack of contextual advice leaves users guessing about optimal usage scenarios.

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