Enable SSH service on the Linux environment with a confirm-gated write. Requires user confirmation to activate access.
Enable SSH service to the Linux environment (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | No | ||
| confirm_token | No | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral context by declaring '(write — requires confirmation)', which warns the agent that this changes state and needs extra confirmation inputs. However, with no annotations provided, it still does not disclose how confirmation works, what side effects enabling SSH may have, or what happens after the operation.
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 conveys the core action and the confirmation requirement up front. There is no filler or repetition, though it is too terse to fully support correct invocation.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, so the description carries the entire burden. It is not enough for an agent to correctly call this tool because the confirmation workflow and the meaning of user_code are unexplained.
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 compensate, but it does not. The three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are completely unexplained. The only hint is the generic phrase 'requires confirmation', which only vaguely maps to confirm_token and confirmation_id.
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 a clear verb and resource: 'Enable SSH service to the Linux environment.' It also signals that this is a write operation, which helps distinguish it from read-only tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself with linux_ssh_disable or linux_ssh_port.
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 given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that linux_ssh_disable is the counterpart for disabling, nor any prerequisites or conditions such as existing SSH configuration or access requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.