remote-ssh-mcp

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 tool reads output but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Read' but not explicit), rate limits, or what happens if the session is inactive. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 of SSH operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of the buffer output), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'ssh_connect'. For a tool interacting with session buffers, more context is needed for reliable use.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (session_id and lines). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Read') and resource ('recent terminal output from session buffer'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ssh_exec' (which executes commands) or 'list_sessions' (which lists sessions), but the specific focus on reading buffer output is clear.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an active SSH session or how it differs from 'ssh_exec' for retrieving output. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately among sibling tools.

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