Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ssh_connectionsC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds no context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects of closing connections, requirements for the connectionKey parameter, or what the tool returns. The listed actions merely mirror schema values and include an unsupported one.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a multi-action tool and includes an unsupported action ('get connection status'). The structure is front-loaded enough, but the content lacks precision and completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with three distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to explain action selection, parameter dependencies, or expected results. It only gives a high-level verb and a partially inaccurate parenthetical list, leaving the agent to infer critical usage details from the schema alone.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'action' and 'connectionKey' parameters—it doesn't clarify that connectionKey is only required for 'close' or that 'list' ignores it. The schema's parameter descriptions already handle the basics.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the resource (SSH connections) and uses 'Manage' as a verb, but it lists 'get connection status' as an action not present in the schema's enum (list, close, close_all). This makes the purpose partially misleading, though the core domain is evident.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given on when to use 'list' versus 'close' versus 'close_all', nor any comparison to the sibling tool 'ssh_execute'. The description simply enumerates example actions without explaining selection criteria or prerequisites.

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

• ssh_executeB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes a command and returns output, but it does not mention potential side effects, security implications, blocking behavior, or error/exit code handling. For a remote command executor, this is insufficient transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is one concise sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite moderate complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description only explains that output is returned without detailing its format, exit codes, or failure modes. It also omits usage context like ssh key requirements or typical scenarios. The description is too thin to be considered complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, each with a meaningful description. The main description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action: execute a command on a remote server via SSH, and the expected result: return the output. This specifically differentiates it from the sibling tool `ssh_connections`, which likely focuses on connection lifecycle, not command execution.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus `ssh_connections` or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., SSH keys or reachable host) or cases where it should not be used. A clear 'when to use' statement is missing.

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