Linux MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that execution can be local or remote via SSH, which is useful context, but fails to describe what 'active network connections' means (e.g., TCP/UDP connections, established/listening states), what the output format looks like, or any potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, with the core purpose stated first ('Get active network connections.') followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating usage guidance from parameter semantics more clearly.

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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter interactions adequately, but lacks behavioral details like output interpretation, error conditions, or security considerations, leaving room for improvement in guiding an AI agent.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional and that execution occurs locally if not provided, and that 'username' is required if host is provided—clarifying the conditional relationship between parameters. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., host as IP/hostname).

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active network connections'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_interfaces' or 'get_listening_ports', which might have overlapping network-related functionality.

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 the parameter documentation (host optional, username required if host provided), suggesting when remote vs local execution occurs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_interfaces' or 'get_listening_ports', nor does it 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.