Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies 'log file' but doesn't mention constraints like the allowed list mentioned in the schema, rate limits, authentication needs for remote hosts, or what happens with invalid paths. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, remote host capability) and the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource type (log file) but could better address sibling differentiation and usage context. The output schema means return values don't need explanation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (log_path, lines, host). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the allowed list or SSH requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('a specific log file'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'read_file' which appears to be a more general file reading tool, nor does it mention the 'get_journal_logs' or 'get_service_logs' siblings that might handle different types of 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 like 'read_file', 'get_journal_logs', or 'get_service_logs'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, path must be in allowed list) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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