Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, specifying it lists 'all' systemd services, which implies comprehensiveness but doesn't detail output format, pagination, or SSH behavior for the host parameter. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited value given the annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope ('all systemd services'), which complements the structured data. However, it could benefit from more context about usage relative to siblings.

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 connection. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior when host is null or SSH requirements. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('systemd services'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_status' or 'get_service_logs', which also deal with services but provide different information. The description is specific about what it lists but lacks sibling distinction.

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 compared to siblings like 'get_service_status' (which might check a specific service) or 'get_service_logs' (which retrieves logs). There's no context about use cases or exclusions.

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