Linux MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't mention whether the tool requires SSH access (implied by the host parameter but not stated), what format the CPU information is returned in, or any performance characteristics. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it gets a baseline score for not adding value beyond what structured data provides.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. Every word earns its place, but the place is too small to be helpful.

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 that this tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain safety or output format. However, it completely fails to address the tool's purpose relative to siblings or provide any usage context. For a tool with one parameter and clear siblings, this is inadequate—the description should at least hint at what makes it unique.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the host parameter clearly documented as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH.' The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain when to use the host parameter versus default null, or how it affects the tool's behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get CPU information' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and title without adding any meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_hardware_information' or 'get_system_information' that might also provide CPU-related data. The description fails to specify what kind of CPU information is retrieved (e.g., model, cores, usage, temperature) or how it differs from similar tools.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed choice between this and other system monitoring tools on the server.

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