mcp-openmediavault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data vs raw output).

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant details (port, password authentication, enabled status) without unnecessary words. Every element 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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what settings are retrieved, but lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed) or output format, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SSH service settings'), and lists key attributes (port, password authentication, enabled status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ftp_settings' or 'get_nfs_settings' by specifying SSH, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond naming the service.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_services_status' (which might include SSH status) or other settings-retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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