Execute a remote command on any registered SSH host using its host ID. Supports Linux and MikroTik systems through configured transports.
Execute a command on a configured host by host_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Remote command (bash on Linux; RouterOS on MikroTik hosts) | |
| host_id | Yes | Host id from ssh_list_hosts (e.g. prod-openwrt, dslab-ml) | |
| timeoutMs | No | Timeout in milliseconds (default 120000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that a command is executed; it does not warn that command execution can have side effects, or clarify output behavior, exit codes, stderr handling, or privileges on the remote host.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key routing parameter immediately.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether it streams output, how errors/timeouts surface, or that it is capable of mutating remote state. An agent invoking ssh_exec would lack critical execution-context details.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with useful parameter descriptions: command specifies bash on Linux vs RouterOS on MikroTik, host_id references ssh_list_hosts, and timeoutMs has a default. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning host_id, but the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and a specific resource ('a command on a configured host by host_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_list_hosts, ssh_read_file, and ssh_write_file, which handle listing and file operations rather than command execution.
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 implies the obvious use case: run a command on a host instead of reading/writing files or listing hosts. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.