Linux MCP Server

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

The description adds context about what information is included (size, mount points, utilization), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation that only indicates it's a safe read operation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like performance implications, rate limits, or error conditions, so it provides some value but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed disk space information') and lists specific inclusions without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), high schema coverage (100%), presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned, though it could benefit from more usage context to fully guide the agent.

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 documented as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed disk space information', specifying it includes 'size, mount points, and utilization'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_block_devices' or 'get_system_information', which might also provide related system data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'get_system_information' or 'list_block_devices' in terms of disk-specific data. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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