Change the SSH port on the Linux environment to a custom value, with two-step confirmation required to apply the write operation securely.
Set SSH port for the Linux environment (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| 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 mentions that it is a write operation and requires confirmation, but it doesn't explain what the confirmation process entails, what happens after setting the port (e.g., service restart), or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior, and it only partially does so.
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 very brief and to the point, which is good for conciseness. However, it is a single sentence that packs the key info (set SSH port, write, requires confirmation) but lacks structure or elaboration on the confirmation flow. It is minimal but not overly verbose.
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 4 parameters, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the cost of being wrong is high. The description does not explain how to obtain the confirmation token, what the port range is (though schema provides min/max), or what confirmation steps are needed. It is incomplete for an agent to safely call this tool without further inference.
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?
With 0% schema description coveragetechnique, the description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names. It doesn't clarify how the 'port' parameter is validated, what role 'user_code' plays, or how to obtain 'confirmation_id' and 'confirm_token'. The mention of 'requires confirmation' suggests the need for those, but detailed semantics are missing.
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 specific action: setting the SSH port for the Linux environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like mngt_sshport, which is closely related to SSH port management. It is clear enough but could be more precise in distinguishing its scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mngt_sshport or linux_ssh_enable. The only context is that it is a write operation that requires confirmation, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.