Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what information is retrieved (e.g., OS, kernel, uptime), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires SSH (implied by the host parameter but not stated), rate limits, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose with specific examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy to scan and understand 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what information is retrieved, though it could benefit from mentioning the SSH capability or usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details.

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 'Remote host to connect to via SSH.' The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specifies the exact resources: 'basic system information such as operating system, distribution, kernel version, uptime, and last boot time.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_cpu_information or get_memory_information by focusing on general system metadata rather than specific hardware or process details.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like get_hardware_information (which might overlap) or list_services (which is more specific). Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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