Verify SSH host connectivity, SHA256 fingerprint, and authentication without executing commands. Use it to validate server config before running remote operations.
测试配置的 SSH 主机连接、指纹和身份认证，不执行命令。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it tests connection, fingerprint, and authentication without executing commands, but does not describe failure modes, timeouts, or return behavior.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and ending with a key constraint. No wasted words.
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 simple no-parameter connectivity test with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It states what is tested and that no commands are executed, though it omits what a test returns or how failures are reported.
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 zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The empty schema and description provide no parameter semantics to clarify, which is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (测试/test) and resources (SSH host connection, fingerprint, authentication), and explicitly says it does not execute commands, which implicitly contrasts with ssh_exec. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, so not a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to verify a configured SSH host without running commands. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives like ssh_connection_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.