Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of hardware information retrieved (CPU, PCI, USB, DMI), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like performance impact, data freshness, or SSH requirements for remote hosts, leaving gaps in context beyond the annotations.

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 and lists key information types without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating local vs. remote usage hints.

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, presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the information scope, which complements the structured data. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and remote host implications, which could enhance completeness for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'host' parameter fully documented in the schema as a remote host for SSH. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as SSH configuration or default behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 specific verbs ('Get hardware information') and enumerates the types of information retrieved (CPU details, PCI devices, USB devices, DMI). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_cpu_information by covering broader hardware aspects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_system_information which might overlap.

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 like get_cpu_information or get_system_information. It mentions remote host capability via the schema, but the description itself lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.

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