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 SSH connectivity and local execution, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like authentication needs (e.g., password/key requirements for SSH), error handling, rate limits, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with remote execution capabilities.

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 with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for parameter guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy. However, the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow, but overall it's efficient with minimal 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 (remote/local execution), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is partially complete. It covers basic usage and parameters but lacks details on authentication, errors, and behavioral nuances, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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. It explains the semantics of 'host' (remote host for SSH, optional for local execution) and 'username' (required if host is provided), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't cover parameter formats (e.g., host as IP/hostname) or default behaviors in detail, resulting in a baseline score.

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 with 'Get memory usage including RAM and swap details,' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('memory usage') with additional details ('RAM and swap'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_system_info' or 'get_hardware_info' that might overlap, preventing a perfect score.

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 clear context for usage with the optional 'host' parameter and conditional requirement for 'username,' explaining when to use remote vs. local execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings (e.g., 'get_system_info' for broader data), so it doesn't fully address alternatives.

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