Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deenesjakoruzh
fauxnix

fauxnix

by 20000419
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

fauxnix

CI npm version npm downloads license 20000419/fauxnix MCP server

Запускайте команды в стиле Linux на Windows — нативно, детерминированно, без VM и без WSL.

fauxnix — это слой трансляции bash→PowerShell, созданный для AI-агентов. Ваш агент продолжает писать уже знакомый ему bash (ls -la | grep foo, find . -name '*.ts' | wc -l, kill -9 1234), а fauxnix детерминированно переводит каждую команду в PowerShell, выполняет её нативно и возвращает вывод, который выглядит как GNU/Linux: колонки ls -l, сообщения об ошибках в стиле bash, коды возврата coreutils, UTF-8/GBK обрабатываются автоматически.

npm install -g fauxnix-cli    # then point any MCP harness at `fauxnix mcp`

fauxnix demo

$ fauxnix "ls -la src | head -2"
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1204 Aug 16 09:12 ast.ts
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 8192 Aug 16 09:12 cli.ts

$ fauxnix "cat nope.txt"
cat: nope.txt: No such file or directory        # not a PowerShell stack trace

Измерено: ваша модель, вероятно, хуже в PowerShell, чем вы думаете

Одна и та же модель (DeepSeek-V4-Pro), те же 5 задач, три режима выполнения на одной Windows-машине — полные данные в docs/benchmark-deepseek-v4-pro.md и docs/benchmark-ark-models.md:

PowerShell

fauxnix

Git Bash

вызовы инструментов / непредвиденные ошибки

14 / 9

7 / 0

4 / 0

время (T1–T4)

163s

66s

57s

На 7 моделях Volcano Ark Coding Plan разрыв между PowerShell и fauxnix сохранялся для каждой протестированной модели — худший случай (kimi-k2-thinking): в 3,1 раза медленнее с 24 ошибками при написании PowerShell против нуля ошибок через fauxnix. fauxnix попадает в ~15% от потолка реального bash без установленного bash-тулкита.

Related MCP server: wmux

Зачем

LLM-агенты значительно лучше работают с bash, чем с PowerShell — bash доминирует в обучающих данных, поэтому модели на Windows часто выдают команды, которые «выглядят правильно, но не работают» (неправильные кавычки, curl, который не является curl, кракозябры из-за несоответствия кодовых страниц, невнятные дампы ошибок CategoryInfo). Существующие решения — это либо полноценная VM (WSL — тяжёлая, неправильная файловая система, отдельное окружение), либо простые обёртки над оболочкой (всё равно PowerShell внутри).

fauxnix выбирает третий путь: переводить, а не эмулировать. Большое и ценное подмножество команд Linux — файловые операции, обработка текста, управление процессами, архивы, основы сетевого взаимодействия — чисто отображается на PowerShell + .NET. fauxnix реализует это подмножество точно и громко и понятно сообщает об ошибках на том, что не может перевести, чтобы агент никогда не получал молча неверные результаты.

Установка

npm install -g fauxnix-cli

Или из исходников:

git clone https://github.com/20000419/fauxnix && cd fauxnix && npm install -g .

Имя npm-пакета — fauxnix-cli (имя fauxnix на npm принадлежит несвязанной библиотеке websocket 2015 года); установленная команда по-прежнему называется fauxnix.

Требования: Windows с PowerShell 5.1+ (встроенный) и Node.js ≥ 18.

Быстрый старт

# one-off commands
fauxnix "ls -la"
fauxnix "grep -rn TODO src | wc -l"
fauxnix "cat log.txt | grep -i error | sort | uniq -c"

# see what a command becomes (great for debugging / learning PS)
fauxnix translate "find . -name '*.log' -mtime +7 -delete"

# check your environment
fauxnix check

# run the MCP stdio server (what agent harnesses connect to)
fauxnix mcp

Неизвестные команды (git, node, npm, python, cargo, gh, docker, ...) передаются нативно с кавычками в стиле argv — без повторного разбора строк и ошибок кавычек.

Использование с вашим агентским харнессом

fauxnix поставляет MCP-сервер stdio, который предоставляет инструмент bash (плюс fauxnix_translate и fauxnix_session). Подключите любой MCP-совместимый харнесс:

Claude Code

claude mcp add fauxnix -- fauxnix mcp

Codex (~/.codex/config.toml или codex mcp add fauxnix -- fauxnix mcp)

[mcp_servers.fauxnix]
command = "fauxnix"
args = ["mcp"]

Примечание: в неинтерактивном режиме codex exec вызовы MCP-инструментов автоматически отклоняются слоем одобрения; передайте --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox (или запустите интерактивно и одобрите один раз).

OpenCode (opencode.json)

{
  "mcp": {
    "fauxnix": { "type": "local", "command": ["fauxnix", "mcp"] }
  }
}

Kimi Code — в отличие от других, MCP-серверы живут в JSON-файле, а не в TOML-конфиге: ~/.kimi-code/mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "fauxnix": { "command": "fauxnix", "args": ["mcp"] }
  }
}

Любой MCP-клиент — stdio-сервер: fauxnix mcp. Имя инструмента — bash (переопределяется через FAUXNIX_TOOL_NAME). Описание инструмента уже обучает модель поддерживаемому подмножеству, поэтому изменения системного промпта не требуются.

MCP-сессия сохраняет cwd, переменные окружения, export/unset и cd -/OLDPWD между вызовами инструментов — она ведёт себя как залогиненная оболочка, а не как stateless exec.

Что переводится

~105 команд, все выходные данные сверены с реальными GNU coreutils на Windows (Git Bash) во время разработки:

  • файлы: ls cp mv rm mkdir rmdir touch mktemp ln readlink realpath basename dirname stat file du df find chmod chown diff

  • текстовые фильтры: grep egrep sed awk sort uniq cut tr — скрипты sed/awk разбираются на этапе трансляции (неподдерживаемые конструкции вызывают именованные ошибки, никогда не ведут себя молча неправильно)

  • текстовый ввод/вывод: echo printf cat head tail wc tee nl tac md5sum sha1sum sha256sum base64 seq yes xargs

  • оболочка/система: cd pwd export unset env printenv ps kill pkill pgrep sleep which type whoami id groups date uname hostname uptime free nproc clear true false test [ [[ : pushd popd dirs sudo timeout man history less more source . eval exit alias set

  • сеть: curl wget ping netstat ss ip ifconfig nslookup dig host

  • архивы: tar gzip gunzip zcat zip unzip

Плюс синтаксис оболочки: пайпы, && / || / ;, перенаправления (> >> 2> 2>&1 < &>, /dev/null), кавычки, $VAR $(...) подстановка команд, префиксы VAR=x cmd, разворачивание ~ и нормализация путей в стиле POSIX (/tmp, /d/foo → D:\foo).

Коды возврата следуют соглашениям bash: 0 — ок, 1 — ошибка, 2 — использование/серьёзная, 127 — команда не найдена, 124 — таймаут.

Как это работает

bash command ──parser──▶ AST ──translator──▶ PowerShell script ──executor──▶ powershell.exe
                                                                              │
agent ◀── GNU-style output, bash-style errors ◀── decoder (UTF-8 → GBK fallback) ◀┘

  • Детерминированная трансляция, ноль вызовов LLM во время выполнения.

  • Каждая команда сопоставляется с генератором, который создаёт самодостаточный блок PowerShell, соблюдающий «контракт Fauxnix»: вывод построчно в stdout, [Console]::Error.WriteLine для stderr в стиле bash, $script:fx_exit для кодов выхода, $input для stdin.

  • Исполнитель оборачивает каждый скрипт принудительным UTF-8 ([Console]::OutputEncoding, $OutputEncoding, chcp 65001), декодирует вывод как строгий UTF-8 с запасным GBK(936) для унаследованных нативных инструментов, убирает сериализацию CLIXML и шум PowerShell из stderr и переписывает типичные ошибки PowerShell (включая сообщения локали zh-CN) в формулировки bash.

  • Скрипты выполняются через -EncodedCommand (UTF-16LE) и прозрачно переключаются на временный файл .ps1, когда превышается лимит командной строки в 32 КБ.

Известные отклонения (честный список)

fauxnix оптимизирован под команды, которые агенты реально запускают. Документированные отклонения:

  • X=1 отдельные присваивания следуют семантике export (одно окружение на сессию; различие между переменной оболочки и экспортированной переменной в bash не существует), и префикс в том же сегменте виден $VAR внутри собственных слов команды (Z=in [[ $Z == in ]] здесь истинно, в bash — ложно, где разворачивание слов предшествует временному окружению).

  • yes ограничен 65 536 строками — пайплайны PS 5.1 не могут сигнализировать вышестоящим производителям остановиться, поэтому неограниченный yes | head завис бы.

  • tail -f, eval, alias, heredoc, while/until/case, посимвольное $((...)) арифметическое разворачивание и фоновый & отклоняются с понятными сообщениями об ошибках вместо неправильного поведения. (if/then/else/fi, for x in ..., подстановка в обратных кавычках, command -v, пайплайн read и source в стиле dotenv поддерживаются.)

  • command -v <builtin> выводит /usr/bin/<name>, где bash выводит просто имя встроенной команды; коды выхода и семантика пустого результата совпадают.

  • chmod отображает только бит read-only; биты exec на Windows не работают. chown — молчаливая no-op (как в Git Bash).

  • Колонки ps aux приблизительны (нет учёта CPU% на процесс, USER показывает ?).

  • gzip -c/пайплайн stdin — текстово-точный, не байтово-точный; файловый режим gzip f — байтово-точный.

  • Пайплайн, производящий ровно одну строку, переданный в wc -l, считает эту строку (bash посчитал бы 0, если производитель опустил завершающий перенос). printf 'x' | md5sum остаётся байтово-точным.

  • sed/awk поддерживают общее подмножество; hold-space, метки, массивы, циклы вызывают именованные ошибки «не поддерживается» на этапе трансляции.

  • curl/wget отказываются от loopback/private/reserved адресов (localhost, 127.x, ::1, 10.x, 172.16–31.x, 192.168.x, 169.254.x) как безопасное значение по умолчанию для HTTP, управляемого агентом.

  • Нативные пайплайны инструментов против кодировки: PS 5.1 имеет один консольный переключатель кодировки, поэтому пайпинг локализованных админ-инструментов (ipconfig, tasklist — GBK на zh-CN) и UTF-8-нативных dev-инструментов (node, curl) не может чисто декодировать оба в середине пайплайна. По умолчанию предпочтение отдаётся UTF-8 dev-инструментам; установите FAUXNIX_NATIVE_ENCODING=ansi, когда ваши агенты ищут китайский вывод нативных Windows-админ-инструментов. Чтение файлов всегда определяется по каждому файлу (строгий UTF-8 → запасной GBK), поэтому grep/sed/awk по GBK-файлам работает в любом режиме — в отличие от Git Bash, который соответствует только кодировке, предполагаемой его локалью.

Разработка

npm install
npm test          # unit + real-PowerShell integration suite (Windows only, auto-skipped elsewhere)
npm run build
npx tsx scratch/run.mjs "any bash command"   # quick live check

Карта архитектуры: src/parser.ts (подмножество bash → AST) · src/translator.ts (AST → PowerShell + обёртка исполнителя) · src/executor.ts (запуск, перенаправления, сохранение сессии) · src/commands/*.ts (генераторы команд) · src/mcp.ts (MCP-сервер) · src/cli.ts.

Лицензия

MIT © 20000419

Available Tools

4 tools
bashA
Destructive

Execute a Linux/bash-style command on this Windows machine.

Commands are deterministically translated to PowerShell and executed natively — no WSL or VM. Output is formatted to look like GNU/Linux tooling (ls -l, ps aux, df -h ...), errors look like bash errors, and text encoding (UTF-8/GBK) is handled automatically.

Supported: pipes (|), && / || / ;, redirections (> >> 2> 2>&1 < /dev/null), variables ($VAR $HOME $1 $# "$@" ~), set -- / shift, array assignment A=(x y z), ${name[n]} ${#name[@]} ${name//pat/str} ${name:off:len}, command substitution $(...), and 109+ coreutils-style commands (., :, [, [[, alias, awk, base64, basename, cat, cd, chmod, chown, clear, command, cp, curl, cut, date...). Unknown commands (git, node, npm, python, cargo...) are passed through and executed natively with argv-style quoting. Not supported: heredocs, env -i/--ignore-environment, background jobs. if/then/elif/else/fi, for-in loops, while/until, case ... esac, and word-level $((...)) arithmetic expansion are supported. CWD, environment variables, export/unset, cd, and positional parameters (set -- / $1 / "$@") persist across calls within this session — a resident PowerShell 5.1 host is started when the MCP session begins (and after reset), so the first bash tool call is already warm. Efficiency: when two or more commands or verification steps are already known, prefer bash_batch once instead of making several bash calls. Keep separate calls only when the next command requires model interpretation of the previous output. For byte-exact work, measure with wc -c or stat -c %s instead of inferring CRLF byte counts from displayed text. MCP capture is bounded to 256 KiB stdout and 64 KiB stderr across the complete command list; larger output is marked truncated. Redirect larger artifacts to files. These transport-safe budgets include room for JSON escaping and duplicate text/structured fields. Exit codes follow bash conventions (0 ok, 1 fail, 2 usage/serious, 127 command not found, 124 timeout, 130 cancelled). The tool also returns structuredContent (schemaVersion 1) with stdout/stderr/exitCode/timedOut/cancelled/truncated/sessionId.

Platform requirement: the execution backend is native Windows PowerShell 5.1+. On hosts without PowerShell on PATH (e.g. Linux containers/sandboxes), the bash tool returns exit code 127 with an actionable error instead of running the command.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe bash-style command line to run
timeout_msNoTimeout in milliseconds (default 120000)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: output is GNU-style formatted, encoding is auto-handled, session state (CWD, env, positional params) persists via a resident PowerShell host, output is truncated past 256 KiB stdout / 64 KiB stderr, and exit codes follow bash conventions with specific values. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before diving into capability lists, and every paragraph addresses a decision an agent must make. It is long, and one sentence about JSON escaping/duplicate fields is meta-commentary that does not help invocation, but overall the density is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape via structuredContent (stdout/stderr/exitCode/timedOut/cancelled/truncated/sessionId), explains truncation budgets and exit-code semantics, and covers the platform prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and only two parameters exist, so the schema documents both fields. The description nonetheless adds real meaning to the command parameter by enumerating supported constructs (pipes, redirections, variables, arrays, command substitution, 109+ coreutils) and passthrough behavior for unknown commands like git/node.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (a Linux/bash-style command) and immediately scopes the target platform (this Windows machine). It even names the sibling bash_batch as the preferred tool for multi-command flows, making it distinguishable without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes when to use bash_batch once instead of several bash calls, and when to keep calls separate (when the next command needs model interpretation of prior output). It also provides an actionable fallback rule for environments without PowerShell and a recommendation to redirect large artifacts to files.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

bash_batchA
Destructive

Compile and execute a preplanned multi-step bash workflow in one MCP round trip.

Use this instead of repeated bash calls when the complete sequence is already known. Steps run serially and atomically in the same persistent session: later steps see cwd, environment, and files from earlier steps, while run/reset requests cannot interleave. Every command is parsed and translated before step 1 runs, and the result reports each step separately.

By default the batch stops after the first nonzero exit. Set stop_on_error=false only when later steps should still run. timeout_ms and both output limits apply to the whole batch, not once per step. Output defaults to 256 KiB stdout and 64 KiB stderr; redirect larger artifacts to files. Preflight performs no operand-file reads: use sed -e with inline script text instead of sed -f. If a later command depends on model interpretation of an earlier result, use separate bash calls instead. For byte counts, include wc -c or stat -c %s as a verification step rather than calculating CRLF bytes mentally.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYesOrdered workflow steps; all are compiled before execution begins
timeout_msNoTotal timeout for the complete batch (default 120000)
stop_on_errorNoStop after the first nonzero exit (default true)
stderr_limit_bytesNoTotal stderr budget shared by every step (default 65536)
stdout_limit_bytesNoTotal stdout budget shared by every step (default 262144)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: steps run serially and atomically in one persistent session, commands are pre-parsed before execution, output limits apply per-batch not per-step, preflight does no operand-file reads, and redirects are recommended for large artifacts. This complements the destructive/open-world hints with actionable detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for a complex batch tool. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then covers behavioral constraints, defaults, and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence conveys useful guidance without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explaining step result reporting, failure behavior, session persistence, output limits, and preflight limitations. An agent has enough context to correctly select and invoke the tool, including how to handle large outputs and byte-count verification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: timeout_ms and output limits apply to the whole batch rather than per step, and stop_on_error=false is recommended only when later steps should still run. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Compile and execute a preplanned multi-step bash workflow in one MCP round trip') and explicitly contrasts it with repeated bash calls. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the single-command sibling bash by focusing on preplanned multi-step workflows.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use instead of repeated bash calls when the complete sequence is already known. It also provides exclusions: use separate bash calls when later steps depend on model interpretation of earlier results, and explains when stop_on_error=false is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

fauxnix_sessionA
Idempotent

Inspect or reset the persistent fauxnix shell session (current directory, environment, positional count, session id). Actions: "status" (default) or "reset".

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNo"status" shows the session state (cwd, tracked env keys, positional count); "reset" clears it back to a fresh shellstatus

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that reset 'clears it back to a fresh shell' and enumerates what status exposes. This contextualizes the mutation behavior beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence states the operation, resource, and fields, then a compact action list. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single optional enum parameter, no output schema, and detailed action semantics in the schema, the description covers the essentials including reset side effects. It could specify the shape of a status response, but that is a minor gap for such a low-complexity tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the action property already explains both enum values. The tool description adds only 'session id' to the status contents, so it slightly extends but does not need to compensate for the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair (inspect/reset), a precise resource (persistent fauxnix shell session), and the exact state fields. This separates it clearly from sibling tools like bash and fauxnix_translate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The action enum and sentence imply when to use it (inspect or reset session state), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling would be preferred. Usage context is clear enough by implication, but no exclusion or alternative is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

fauxnix_translateA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Translate a bash-style command into the equivalent PowerShell script WITHOUT executing it. Useful for learning/debugging what fauxnix does under the hood.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe bash-style command line to translate (never executed)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by emphasizing 'WITHOUT executing it' and that the command is 'never executed', reinforcing safety beyond the annotations. This matches the bar for adding value beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action and immediate caveat (no execution) in the first sentence, then stating the use case. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete enough. It explains the translation function, non-execution guarantee, and appropriate use case. The absence of return value detail is acceptable since there is no output schema to contradict, and the use case is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema (just reiterates 'bash-style command line'), but it does clarify that the command is never executed, which complements the schema description. No enum parameters exist to add further context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool translates a bash-style command into PowerShell without executing it, specifying the verb 'Translate' and the resource 'bash-style command'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bash' or 'fauxnix_session' by highlighting its non-execution and translation-only purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states this is for learning or debugging what fauxnix does under the hood, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling 'bash' implies execution which contrasts with this tool's non-execution nature.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.13.0
    • Addedbash_batch
    • Changedfauxnix_session1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
        Previous value: -"\"status\" shows the session state (cwd, tracked env keys); \"reset\" clears it back to a fresh shell"New value: +"\"status\" shows the session state (cwd, tracked env keys, positional count); \"reset\" clears it back to a fresh shell"
  2. 3 tool updates
    • First observedbash
    • First observedfauxnix_session
    • First observedfauxnix_translate
Deploy Server
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation4/5

bash and bash_batch overlap in purpose (both execute commands), but the descriptions give clear guidance on when to use each (batch for preplanned sequences, separate calls when model interpretation is needed). fauxnix_session and fauxnix_translate are clearly distinct. Only minor risk of misselection between the two execution tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two naming families coexist: bare 'bash'/'bash_batch' (shared prefix, but no verb_noun form) and 'fauxnix_session'/'fauxnix_translate' (server-prefixed). The pattern is readable and not chaotic, but conventions are mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a shell-emulation server: execution, batched execution, session inspection, and translation each earn their place with no redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers execution, batch workflows, session status/reset, and translation introspection, which is solid lifecycle coverage for a shell proxy. Minor gap: no direct way to kill or interrupt a running process beyond reset, but core workflows are covered.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessUsually handled

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers