NHN Server MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states execution happens but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: security constraints (whitelist mentioned in schema but not description), authentication needs (SSH implied by user parameter), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a potentially dangerous command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover security implications, execution environment, error cases, or what the tool returns. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is severely lacking.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain command whitelist details or host format). 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 states '서버에서 명령어를 실행합니다' (executes commands on a server), which provides a basic verb+resource. However, it's vague about what type of commands or execution mechanism (SSH implied by parameters but not stated). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'connection_status' or 'disconnect_server', which are clearly different operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be reachable), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'disconnect_server' or 'get_config'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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