Check whether an SSH session is active or disconnected using its session ID to verify connectivity and diagnose issues.
Check the status of an SSH session.
Args: session_id: The SSH session ID to check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Check the status' without disclosing what the status entails (e.g., active, closed, error), potential side effects, or permissions required. The description offers minimal insight beyond the tool's basic action.
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—two sentences and an argument line—with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured cleanly. Every part 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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the context is thin: it does not mention where to obtain session IDs (e.g., from ssh_sessions) or what the expected statuses are. For a simple tool this is adequate but not rich. Complexity of sibling tools suggests more context would help.
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 single parameter 'session_id' is not described in the input schema (0% schema description coverage). The tool description adds 'The SSH session ID to check', which clarifies its meaning beyond the schema's title. This adds significant value.
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 tool's purpose: 'Check the status of an SSH session.' The verb 'Check' and resource 'status of an SSH session' are specific, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling tools like ssh_session_start, ssh_session_stop, and ssh_sessions.
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 guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), nor does it direct users to obtain session IDs from other tools like ssh_sessions or ssh_session_start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.