Retrieve detailed information for a specific SSH key using its ID or name, including public key, name, and creation date.
Get details for a specific SSH key.
Args: ssh_key_id: The SSH key ID or name (e.g., "my-laptop-key" or UUID)
Returns: SSH key details including name, public key, and creation date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssh_key_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read with no side effects, and the Returns section specifies what data will be available (name, public key, creation date). It doesn't discuss failure modes or permissions, but for a simple retrieval these are not required.
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?
Compact docstring-style format with separate Args and Returns sections. Every line adds useful information, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
With one parameter, an output schema, and a simple read operation, the description covers input format and output content. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the single parameter, clarifying it accepts either an ID or name and giving an example. This exceeds schema information and leaves no ambiguity.
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?
States verb 'Get' + resource 'details for a specific SSH key'. The singular 'specific' distinguishes it from ssh_key_list, and the operation type contrasts with create/update/delete siblings. Clear and unambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The description implies this is the lookup for a single key, but it never names ssh_key_list or otherwise contrasts with sibling tools. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and argument.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.