SSH MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return structure (Dict with connections, default_connection, total_count) which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return structure. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose first, followed by return details. Minor improvement could be separating the return description more clearly.

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 parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description provides the purpose and return structure, which covers the basics. However, without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and any authentication requirements. The sibling context suggests this is part of an SSH toolset, but the description doesn't leverage this context to provide more complete guidance.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless operation by not mentioning any inputs, which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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: '列出所有可用的SSH连接配置' (List all available SSH connection configurations). This is a specific verb+resource combination that tells what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_ssh_connection' which might verify connection status rather than list configurations.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other SSH-related tools like 'check_ssh_connection', or any context about typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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