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 execution for remote hosts, which adds some behavioral context (network dependency, authentication needs). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, output format (though an output schema exists), or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). More transparency is needed 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying usage. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, 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 execution, systemd interaction), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or security implications. With the output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but more context on execution behavior would improve completeness.

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 provides meaning for all three parameters: 'service_name' as the service to check, 'host' for optional remote execution, and 'username' as required for SSH. This adds value beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify parameter formats (e.g., service name conventions) or examples, leaving some gaps.

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 ('detailed status of a specific systemd service'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_services' (which lists services) and 'get_service_logs' (which retrieves logs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_system_info' which might include service status as part of broader system data.

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 usage through the parameter explanations: use this tool to check a specific service's status, optionally on a remote host via SSH. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_services' for enumeration or 'get_service_logs' for logs, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond SSH requirements.

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