SSH MCP Server

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 describes what the tool returns but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential timeouts, or error handling behavior. The return format documentation is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized - every sentence adds value. The only minor improvement would be front-loading the purpose more prominently, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., does it require pre-configured SSH connections?), error scenarios, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains that 'connection_name' is optional ('如果不指定则使用默认连接' - if not specified, use default connection) and describes what it represents ('SSH连接名称' - SSH connection name). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 as '检查SSH连接状态' (check SSH connection status), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_ssh_connections' - both involve SSH connections but serve different functions (status check vs. listing available connections).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions '如果不指定则使用默认连接' (if not specified, use default connection), this is parameter usage guidance rather than tool selection guidance. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other SSH-related 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.