kinsta_environments_ssh_statusGet SSH/SFTP status for a Kinsta environment by its ID. Verify if SSH access is enabled.
Get the SSH/SFTP status for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the SFTP scope but doesn't clarify what 'status' includes or what kind of response to expect, which is acceptable for a simple read but adds little beyond the annotations.
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 with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only status tool, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, the meaning of 'status' is left vague, and given the large set of SSH-related siblings, more context about what specifically this status reports would improve completeness.
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% and the only parameter, env_id, is already documented as 'The environment ID'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 identifies the action (get) and resource (SSH/SFTP status for an environment). It distinguishes itself from most SSH-related siblings by focusing on 'status' rather than toggle, config, password, or IP allowlist operations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many related SSH sibling tools, such as kinsta_environments_ssh_toggle, kinsta_environments_ssh_config, or kinsta_environments_ssh_ip-allowlist. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.