Linux MCP Server

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying 'detailed status' and 'systemd service', providing context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like potential errors (e.g., if the service doesn't exist), authentication needs for remote hosts, or rate limits.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), high schema coverage (100%), annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies 'systemd service' and 'detailed status', which adds useful context. However, it could improve by mentioning the tool's scope (e.g., local vs. remote) or output format hints.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (service_name and host). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'detailed status' includes or how the host parameter affects behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 status of a specific systemd service'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' or 'get_service_logs', which would require mentioning it provides detailed status rather than just listing or retrieving logs.

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 to choose it over 'list_services' (for a simple list) or 'get_service_logs' (for log retrieval), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing systemd or appropriate permissions.

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