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 adds the scope 'active network connections', which provides useful context about what data is returned (real-time vs. historical). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it requires SSH access (implied by the host parameter but not stated), rate limits, or output format details. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate—some value added but minimal behavioral context.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (one optional parameter), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope ('active network connections'), which is crucial for usage. However, it lacks guidance on when to use versus siblings, which is a minor gap in this context.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about active network connections', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_network_interfaces' (which focuses on interface configuration rather than active connections) and 'get_listening_ports' (which focuses on listening services rather than all active connections). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for real-time connection monitoring vs. historical data) or when to use siblings like 'get_listening_ports' or 'get_network_interfaces'. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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