Linux MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool can execute locally or remotely via SSH, which adds some behavioral context. However, it fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential security implications of SSH usage, or any rate limits. For a tool with network/SSH capabilities and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by explaining key usage aspects. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient without waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (network/SSH operations), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, output format hints). For a tool with potential security implications, it should do more to guide safe usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining both parameters: 'host' (remote host for SSH, optional with local execution fallback) and 'username' (required if host is provided). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the conditional relationship between parameters and the tool's dual execution modes.

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: 'Get active network connections.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('active network connections'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_interfaces or get_listening_ports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_process_info might also involve network connections), so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance through parameter documentation: it explains when 'host' and 'username' are required/optional (e.g., 'host' is optional, 'username' required if host is provided). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_listening_ports or get_network_interfaces, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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