Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'List running processes' implies it retrieves current process data but doesn't specify format, pagination, or SSH behavior for the host parameter. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate, though more detail on output or constraints would enhance 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 'List running processes' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just three words that directly convey the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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), high schema coverage (100%), annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the core action but could better address sibling differentiation or output expectations, though the output schema mitigates the need for return value 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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond this, such as default behavior when host is null. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 'List running processes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running processes'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_process_info' or 'get_network_connections', which might also involve process-related operations, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'get_process_info' (which might retrieve detailed info for a specific process) and 'get_network_connections' (which could involve processes), there's no indication of this tool's specific context or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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