Update metadata for a known host by storing its OS or description learned during a session.
Update metadata for a known host. Use this to record a host's description or OS after learning it during a session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | Operating system info (e.g. "Ubuntu 24.04") | |
| host | Yes | Hostname to update | |
| description | No | Human-readable description of the host (e.g. "CI server") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates metadata, but does not explain whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, what happens if the host is unknown, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage context is given immediately in the second sentence.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some uncertainty about update semantics and behavior for unknown hosts, which prevents a higher score.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions description and OS, which maps to two of the parameters, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update metadata for a known host.' It clarifies the scope by naming exactly what can be updated (description or OS), and it is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools execute and start_server.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to...' and gives a concrete context: recording a host's description or OS after learning it during a session. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.