Prepare SSH for the database tunnel: generate an ed25519 key if missing, add the host to SSH config, and return the public key ready for Forge.
Prepara SSH para el túnel de BD: genera clave ed25519 si falta, añade el host al config, y devuelve la clave pública lista para Forge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses primary side effects: conditional key generation, SSH config modification, and returning a public key. However, it omits permissions required, file locations, whether existing config is overwritten or backed up, and other operational details that an agent would need for safe invocation.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the concrete actions. There is no redundant or filler text; every clause adds information.
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 setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main actions and return value. It is incomplete in two important ways: it does not explain the optional email parameter, and it does not disclose prerequisite permissions or config-file behavior. An agent can still call it without email, but the definition is not fully self-sufficient.
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?
There is one optional parameter (email), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the email parameter or what it controls, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent cannot tell whether or why to pass this argument.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: prepares SSH for a DB tunnel. It then enumerates the exact actions (generate ed25519 key if missing, add host to config, return public key ready for Forge), which clearly distinguishes it from all database-query and financial siblings.
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 (setting up SSH for a database tunnel and Forge integration) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The implied context is enough for a basic call but leaves the agent to infer the calling situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.