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 the tool uses 'efficient Linux find command' and supports remote SSH execution, which adds useful context about implementation and connectivity. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or output format, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but system-interactive tool.

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 a brief implementation note, then a structured parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does well by fully explaining parameter semantics and usage context. However, as a system tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error conditions or output structure, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: 'path' as the directory to analyze, 'newest_first' as a boolean for sorting order with a default, and 'host' and 'username' for optional SSH connectivity with dependencies explained. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('List directories sorted by modification date') and resource ('directories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_directories_by_name' and 'list_directories_by_size' by specifying the sorting criterion. It also mentions the implementation method ('Uses efficient Linux find command'), adding technical context.

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 by explaining when to use remote vs. local execution (if host is provided, it uses SSH; otherwise executes locally). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directories_by_name' or 'list_directories_by_size', missing sibling differentiation.

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