List all configured SSH hosts from the registry to identify available connection targets, enabling direct selection of a host_id for subsequent command execution via ssh_exec.
List configured SSH hosts (use host_id with ssh_exec)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list (read-only), which is clear, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or output format. For a simple listing operation this is likely safe, but the lack of detail about what is returned (e.g., host names, IDs, connection details) leaves some ambiguity. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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, efficient sentence that states the purpose and provides a usage hint. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action and follows with the relevant cross-tool reference. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and how the result connects to a sibling tool. However, it does not specify the exact format of the returned hosts (e.g., whether it returns host names, IDs, or full connection strings), which could be a minor gap. Given the simplicity and the cross-reference to ssh_exec, it is adequate for a basic tool.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are none). Per the rules, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none. It adds a hint about the output being used as host_id, which indirectly explains the semantic meaning of what is returned, but no parameter explanation is needed.
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 lists configured SSH hosts, using a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('configured SSH hosts'). It also hints at a follow-up action ('use host_id with ssh_exec'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (ssh_exec, ssh_read_file, ssh_write_file) that operate on files or execute commands. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 explicitly mentions 'use host_id with ssh_exec', which tells the agent that the output of this tool is intended as input for ssh_exec. This implies when to use this tool (to discover available hosts before executing commands). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.