Linux MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Uses efficient Linux find command' which adds some implementation context, but fails to describe critical behaviors: no information on permissions required, error handling, output format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with remote execution capability, 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 with the core purpose first. The parameter explanations are organized in a clear Args section. While efficient, the behavioral context sentence could be more integrated rather than standalone.

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 exists (which handles return values), the description adequately covers parameter semantics. However, for a tool with remote execution capability and no annotations, it lacks important behavioral context about authentication requirements, error conditions, and operational constraints that would be needed for safe 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 fully compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: 'path: Directory path to analyze', 'reverse: Sort in reverse order (Z-A)', 'host: Remote host to connect to via SSH', and 'username: SSH username'. Each parameter's purpose and relationships (e.g., username required if host provided) are well documented 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 tool's purpose: 'List directories sorted alphabetically by name' with the specific verb 'list' and resource 'directories'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_directories_by_modified_date' and 'list_directories_by_size' by specifying the sorting criterion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'executes locally if not provided' for host), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other directory listing tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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