Open a persistent SSH session to a bastion host and wait for the menu, reusing any existing session instead of creating duplicates. Use once per conversation for audited access.
Open the persistent JumpServer SSH session and wait until the menu is detected. Idempotent — if a session already exists this does NOT create a second one, it returns the current state. One session per conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine context: it explains what idempotency means ('does NOT create a second one, it returns the current state'), discloses blocking behavior ('wait until the menu is detected'), and adds a constraint not in the annotations ('one session per conversation'). It stops short of failure/timeout or auth behavior.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action and completion condition are front-loaded, followed by the idempotency and cardinality constraints. Every sentence carries distinct 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, blocking semantics, idempotency, and session cardinality, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits failure/timeout handling and any authentication precondition, which are the remaining gaps.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond behavior. No parameters are misdescribed or left ambiguous.
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 ('Open the persistent JumpServer SSH session') plus the completion condition ('wait until the menu is detected'). It is distinct from lifecycle siblings like jumpserver_close/jumpserver_leave, but it never names an alternative such as jumpserver_enter or jumpserver_status, so differentiation is left partly to inference from the sibling list.
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?
Implicitly this is the session-start tool and 'one session per conversation' hints at its place in the lifecycle, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like jumpserver_enter or jumpserver_status. The idempotency note is the closest thing to routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.