Verify SSH connectivity to a configured host and report its basic identity, reusing an existing connection when possible.
Open (or reuse) the SSH connection to a host and report basic identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Configured host name from list_hosts |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does 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 may open or reuse a connection, but it does not clarify whether this mutates any persistent state, whether it requires an existing connection, or what happens on failure. The phrase 'report basic identity' is vague without further detail.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return format is covered; however, the description omits important context like when the tool should be used, any side effects of opening a connection, and whether a prior list_hosts call is required. For a simple one-parameter tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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%; the host parameter is already described as 'Configured host name from list_hosts'. The description adds 'to a host', which merely restates the parameter's role without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Open (or reuse)') and a clear resource ('the SSH connection to a host'), then states the action of reporting basic identity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command or list_hosts, which perform different operations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as calling list_hosts first, nor does it explain situations where check_connection is preferred over other connection-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.