Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Read'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the method ('using cat'), hinting at Unix command-line behavior, but doesn't detail constraints like file size limits, encoding issues, or error handling. 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Read the contents of a file') and adds a minor implementation detail ('using cat') that doesn't detract from clarity. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (read-only with annotations), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic action and method, though it could better address usage context and behavioral nuances like error cases or remote host implications.

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 clear docs for 'path' and 'host'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'host' enables SSH or clarify 'path' beyond 'Absolute'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' or 'read_log_file' by focusing on reading arbitrary file contents rather than listing or reading specific log files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_log_file' beyond the general vs. specific file type.

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 like 'read_log_file' for logs or 'list_files' for metadata. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., file permissions) or exclusions (e.g., binary files). The mention of 'cat' implies Unix-like systems but isn't explicit about when this is appropriate.

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