Verify connectivity to a host using its connection details before adding it. Returns success or failure so you can confirm address, port, and credentials are valid.
Test host connection by info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| user | No | ||
| authMode | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| privateKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it says nothing about whether this performs a network connection, what credentials are required, whether it is read-only, what happens on failure, or what is returned. For a 7-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a severe gap.
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 short but not appropriately sized for a tool with seven parameters and zero schema documentation. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the single phrase does not front-load any actionable detail.
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 seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke the tool or interpret its behavior from this text.
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 0%, so the description must explain the seven parameters, but it provides no information about name, addr, port, user, authMode, password, or privateKey. 'By info' is too vague to convey parameter roles or required combinations.
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 'Test host connection by info' essentially restates the tool name and does not clarify what 'by info' means or how this differs from the sibling tool test_host_connection. It is a tautological restatement rather than a genuine specification of purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_host_connection or test_compose. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and must guess which sibling is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.