List, save, or delete saved SSH host profiles stored in ~/.matlock/profiles.json, so agents can reuse connection details and manage host configurations.
List, save, or remove saved SSH host profiles in ~/.matlock/profiles.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform. | |
| profile | No | Profile data (required if action is save). | |
| profileName | No | Profile name (required if action is delete). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the storage location, but for a mutation tool (save/remove) it says nothing about reversibility, side effects, required permissions, or how existing profiles are affected — significant gaps for zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the operations, the resource, and the persistence location with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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?
For a tool with a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and storage path but omits mutation behavior and result expectations. The schema handles parameter structure, but the behavioral gap keeps it at a minimum-viable level.
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 100%, and the schema already encodes the action enum and the 'required if action is save/delete' conditions for the other parameters. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific set of verbs (List, save, remove) against a clear resource (saved SSH host profiles) and even names the storage file (~/.matlock/profiles.json). This clearly separates it from execution/transfer siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any named alternative.
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?
It lists the supported operations but gives no guidance on when to use this over a sibling (e.g., ssh_exec or ssh_key_bootstrap), no prerequisites, and no conditions for choosing an action. The agent is left to infer usage from the enum alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.