Run a single command on multiple remote servers in parallel. If one server fails, results and errors are returned together, each labeled by server name.
Выполнить одну команду на нескольких серверах параллельно.
Сбой одного сервера не отменяет остальные — в ответе будет и результат, и ошибка, каждая рядом со своим именем.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| servers | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| max_workers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds an important behavioral detail: failure on one server does not cancel the others, and per-server results and errors are returned together. It does not mention timeout or worker behavior, but the most critical parallel-execution semantics are captured.
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?
Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the essential failure-handling behavior. No redundancy or filler.
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?
The description is sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation, but with no output schema and four parameters, it leaves gaps: it does not say how servers are identified/referenced, exactly how the result payload is structured, or what timeout/max_workers fully control. It is adequate but not fully complete for autonomous use.
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 0%, and the description only paraphrases 'command' and 'servers'. It does not explain timeout units/scope or what max_workers controls, so an agent must infer those details solely from parameter names and defaults.
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 states a specific action: execute one command on multiple servers in parallel. This clearly distinguishes it from single-server tools like ssh_run and from other SSH operations such as upload, shell, or tunnel tools.
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 makes the intended use case explicit: running one command across many servers concurrently. It does not explicitly name an alternative for single-server execution, but the 'multiple servers in parallel' phrasing gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.