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. It mentions remote execution via SSH but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements beyond username, error handling, timeout behavior, output format details, or whether this requires elevated privileges. The description provides basic context but misses critical operational details.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured. While efficient, it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information about what the tool returns.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description does reasonably well explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context for a system administration tool. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address operational considerations like permissions and error cases.

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 significant value beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional for remote SSH connection (defaulting to local execution) and that 'username' is required when host is provided. This clarifies the conditional relationship between parameters that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('systemd services') with specific scope ('all' and 'with their current status'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_service_status (which likely checks a specific service) and get_service_logs (which retrieves logs rather than listing).

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 when needing a comprehensive list of services with statuses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_service_status or get_service_logs. It provides some context about remote vs. local execution but no explicit guidance on tool selection.

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