여러 플랫폼(Windows, macOS, Linux)에서 셸 명령을 실행하기 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다. 이 서버는 기본 제공 허용 목록 및 승인 메커니즘을 통해 셸 명령을 안전하게 실행할 수 있는 방법을 제공합니다.
Windows, macOS 및 Linux에서 MCP를 통해 셸 명령 실행
자동 플랫폼 감지 및 쉘 선택
여러 셸 지원:
Windows : cmd.exe, PowerShell
macOS : zsh, bash, sh
리눅스 : bash, sh, zsh
보안 수준에 따른 명령 허용 목록:
안전 : 승인 없이 실행할 수 있는 명령
승인 필요 : 실행 전 명시적 승인이 필요한 명령
금지됨 : 명시적으로 차단된 명령
플랫폼별 명령 허용 목록
잠재적으로 위험한 명령에 대한 비차단 승인 워크플로
파일 기반 로그를 갖춘 포괄적인 로깅 시스템
포괄적인 명령 관리 도구
진단을 위한 플랫폼 정보 도구
Related MCP server: Mac Shell MCP Server
Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 Super Shell MCP Server를 자동으로 설치하려면:
지엑스피1
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/cfdude/super-shell-mcp.git
cd super-shell-mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run buildnpm start또는 직접:
node build/index.jsRoo Code와 Claude Desktop은 모두 MCP 서버에 대해 유사한 구성 형식을 사용합니다. Super Shell MCP 서버를 설정하는 방법은 다음과 같습니다.
Super Shell MCP를 사용하는 가장 쉬운 방법은 NPX를 사용하는 것입니다. NPX는 수동 설정 없이 npm에서 패키지를 자동으로 설치하고 실행합니다. 이 패키지는 NPM (https://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcp )에서 다운로드할 수 있습니다.
"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}로컬 설치를 사용하려면 다음을 Roo Code MCP 설정 구성 파일( ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json 에 위치)에 추가하세요.
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}선택적으로 셸 매개변수를 추가하여 사용자 정의 셸을 지정할 수 있습니다.
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js",
"--shell=/usr/bin/bash"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Windows 11 예제
"super-shell": {
"command": "C:\\Program Files\\nodejs\\node.exe",
"args": [
"C:\\Program Files\\nodejs\\node_modules\\npm\\bin\\npx-cli.js",
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp",
"C:\\Users\\username"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json 에 있는 Claude Desktop 구성 파일에 다음을 추가합니다.
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Windows 사용자의 경우 구성 파일은 일반적으로 %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json 에 있습니다.
기본 셸: cmd.exe(또는 사용 가능한 경우 PowerShell)
구성 경로:
Roo 코드: %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json
클로드 데스크톱: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
셸 경로 예:
cmd.exe: C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
PowerShell: C:\\Windows\\System32\\WindowsPowerShell\\v1.0\\powershell.exe
PowerShell Core: C:\\Program Files\\PowerShell\\7\\pwsh.exe
기본 셸: /bin/zsh
구성 경로:
Roo 코드: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Claude 데스크톱: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
셸 경로 예:
zsh: /bin/zsh
배시: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
기본 셸: /bin/bash(또는 $SHELL 환경 변수)
구성 경로:
Roo 코드: ~/.config/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Claude 데스크톱: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
셸 경로 예:
배시: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
zsh: /usr/bin/zsh
선택적으로 사용자 정의 셸을 지정할 수 있습니다.
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js",
"--shell=C:\\Windows\\System32\\WindowsPowerShell\\v1.0\\powershell.exe"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}/path/to/super-shell-mcp 저장소를 복제한 실제 경로로 바꾸세요.
메모 :
Roo 코드의 경우: 보안상의 이유로
alwaysAllow빈 배열[]로 설정하는 것이 좋습니다. 명령을 실행하기 전에 승인을 요청하기 때문입니다. 특정 명령을 승인 없이 허용하려면 배열에 해당 명령 이름을 추가할 수 있습니다. 예:"alwaysAllow": ["execute_command", "get_whitelist"].Claude Desktop의 경우: 보안상의 이유로
alwaysAllow를false로 설정하는 것이 좋습니다. Claude Desktop은 배열 대신 부울 값을 사용하는데,false모든 명령에 승인이 필요함을 의미하고,true모든 명령이 확인 없이 허용됨을 의미합니다.중요 :
alwaysAllow매개변수는 Super Shell MCP 서버 자체가 아닌 MCP 클라이언트(Roo Code 또는 Claude Desktop)에서 처리됩니다. 클라이언트가 서버로 요청을 보내기 전에 승인 절차를 처리하므로 서버는 두 형식 중 어떤 형식이든 정상적으로 작동합니다.
서버는 다음과 같은 MCP 도구를 제공합니다.
get_platform_info현재 플랫폼과 셸에 대한 정보를 얻습니다.
{}execute_command현재 플랫폼에서 셸 명령을 실행합니다.
{
"command": "ls",
"args": ["-la"]
}get_whitelist허용된 명령 목록을 가져옵니다.
{}add_to_whitelist허용 목록에 명령을 추가합니다.
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "safe",
"description": "Run Python 3 scripts"
}update_security_level허용 목록에 있는 명령의 보안 수준을 업데이트합니다.
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval"
}remove_from_whitelist허용 목록에서 명령을 제거합니다.
{
"command": "python3"
}get_pending_commands승인 대기 중인 명령 목록을 가져옵니다.
{}approve_command보류 중인 명령을 승인합니다.
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here"
}deny_command보류 중인 명령을 거부합니다.
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here",
"reason": "This command is potentially dangerous"
}서버에는 감지된 플랫폼을 기반으로 자동으로 선택되는 플랫폼별 명령 허용 목록이 포함되어 있습니다.
echo - 표준 출력에 텍스트 인쇄
ls - 디렉토리 내용 나열
pwd - 작업 디렉토리 인쇄
echo - 표준 출력에 텍스트 인쇄
cat - 파일 연결 및 인쇄
grep - 파일에서 패턴 검색
find - 디렉토리 계층 구조에서 파일 찾기
cd - 디렉토리 변경
head - 파일의 첫 번째 부분 출력
tail - 파일의 마지막 부분 출력
wc - 줄 바꿈, 단어, 바이트 수를 출력합니다.
dir - 디렉토리 내용 나열
type - 텍스트 파일의 내용을 표시합니다.
findstr - 파일에서 문자열 검색
where - 프로그램 찾기
whoami - 현재 사용자 표시
hostname - 컴퓨터 이름 표시
ver - 운영 체제 버전 표시
copy - 파일 복사
move - 파일 이동
mkdir - 디렉토리 생성
rmdir - 디렉토리 제거
rename - 파일 이름 바꾸기
attrib - 파일 속성 변경
mv - 파일 이동(이름 바꾸기)
cp - 파일 및 디렉토리 복사
mkdir - 디렉토리 생성
touch - 파일 타임스탬프를 변경하거나 빈 파일을 만듭니다.
chmod - 파일 모드 비트 변경
chown - 파일 소유자 및 그룹 변경
del - 파일 삭제
erase - 파일 삭제
format - 디스크 포맷
runas - 다른 사용자로 프로그램 실행
rm - 파일 또는 디렉토리 제거
sudo - 다른 사용자로 명령 실행
모든 명령은 MCP 서버를 실행하는 사용자의 권한으로 실행됩니다.
승인이 필요한 명령은 명시적으로 승인될 때까지 대기열에 보관됩니다.
금지된 명령은 실행되지 않습니다.
서버는 쉘 주입을 방지하기 위해 exec 대신 Node.js의 execFile 사용합니다.
인수는 지정된 경우 허용된 패턴에 대해 검증됩니다.
add_to_whitelist 도구를 사용하여 허용 목록을 확장할 수 있습니다. 예:
{
"command": "npm",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval",
"description": "Node.js package manager"
}Super Shell MCP는 https://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcp 에서 npm 패키지로 제공됩니다.
NPX 방법을 사용하면(구성 섹션의 옵션 1에 표시된 대로) 다음과 같은 여러 가지 이점이 있습니다.
수동 설정 없음 : 저장소 복제, 종속성 설치 또는 프로젝트 빌드가 필요하지 않습니다.
자동 업데이트 : 항상 최신 게시 버전을 사용합니다.
크로스 플랫폼 호환성 : Windows, macOS 및 Linux에서 동일한 방식으로 작동합니다.
단순화된 구성 : 절대 경로가 없는 더 짧은 구성
유지 관리 감소 : 관리하거나 업데이트할 로컬 파일이 없습니다.
GitHub에서 최신 개발 버전을 직접 사용하려면:
"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"github:cfdude/super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [], // For Roo Code
"disabled": false
}npm에 수정된 버전을 게시하려면 다음을 수행하세요.
package.json을 귀하의 세부 정보로 업데이트하세요.
"bin" 필드가 올바르게 구성되었는지 확인하세요.
"bin": {
"super-shell-mcp": "./build/index.js"
}npm에 게시:
npm publishNPX를 사용하여 MCP 클라이언트와 최적의 통합을 위해 이 프로젝트는 다음과 같은 모범 사례를 따릅니다.
실행 파일 진입점 : 메인 파일에는 shebang 라인( #!/usr/bin/env node )이 포함되어 있으며 빌드하는 동안 실행 가능하게 됩니다.
패키지 구성 :
"type": "module" - ES 모듈이 사용되도록 보장합니다.
"bin" 필드 - 명령 이름을 진입점에 매핑합니다.
"files" 필드 - 게시할 때 포함할 파일을 지정합니다.
"prepare" 스크립트 - 설치 시 컴파일이 수행되도록 보장합니다.
TypeScript 구성 :
"module": "NodeNext" - 적절한 ES 모듈 지원
"moduleResolution": "NodeNext" - ES 모듈과 일치
자동 설치 및 실행 :
MCP 클라이언트 구성은 npx -y 사용하여 패키지를 자동으로 설치하고 실행합니다.
프로세스가 백그라운드에서 실행되므로 터미널 창이 닫히지 않습니다.
출판 과정 :
# Update version in package.json
npm version patch # or minor/major as appropriate
# Build and publish
npm publish이러한 방식을 사용하면 별도의 터미널 창이 없어도 MCP 클라이언트가 MCP 서버를 자동으로 시작할 수 있으므로 사용자 경험과 운영 효율성이 향상됩니다.
PowerShell 스크립트 실행 정책
문제 : PowerShell이 "이 시스템에서는 스크립트 실행이 비활성화되어 있습니다" 오류로 인해 스크립트 실행을 차단할 수 있습니다.
해결 방법 : PowerShell을 관리자 권한으로 실행하고 Set-ExecutionPolicy RemoteSigned 실행하거나 셸을 구성할 때 -ExecutionPolicy Bypass 매개변수를 사용합니다.
경로 구분 기호
문제 : Windows는 경로에 백슬래시( \ )를 사용하는데, JSON에서는 이를 이스케이프해야 합니다.
해결 방법 : JSON 구성 파일에서 이중 백슬래시( \\ )를 사용합니다(예: C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
명령을 찾을 수 없습니다
문제 : Windows에는 ls , grep 등의 Unix 명령어가 없습니다.
해결 방법 : Windows와 동일한 명령( ls 대신 dir , grep 대신 findstr )을 사용하세요.
셸 권한
문제 : 명령 실행 시 권한이 거부됨
해결 방법 : chmod +x /path/to/shell 사용하여 셸에 적절한 권한이 있는지 확인하세요.
환경 변수
문제 : MCP 서버에서 환경 변수를 사용할 수 없음
해결 방법 : 셸의 프로필 파일( .zshrc , .bashrc 등)에 환경 변수를 설정합니다.
셸 감지 문제
문제 : 서버가 올바른 셸을 감지하지 못함
해결 방법 : 구성에서 셸 경로를 명시적으로 지정하세요.
명령 실행 시간 초과
문제 : 명령 실행 시간이 너무 길어지고 시간 초과가 발생합니다.
해결 방법 : 명령 서비스 생성자에서 시간 초과 값을 늘리세요
서버에는 디버깅과 모니터링을 더 쉽게 하기 위해 로그를 파일에 기록하는 포괄적인 로깅 시스템이 포함되어 있습니다.
로그 파일 위치
기본값: 서버 디렉토리의 logs/super-shell-mcp.log
로그 디렉토리는 Git(.gitkeep 파일)에 의해 자동으로 생성되고 추적됩니다.
로그 파일 자체는 .gitignore를 통해 Git에서 제외됩니다.
서버 작업, 명령 실행 및 승인 워크플로에 대한 자세한 정보가 포함되어 있습니다.
로그 수준
INFO : 일반 운영 정보
DEBUG : 자세한 디버깅 정보
ERROR : 오류 조건 및 예외
로그 보기
로그를 확인하려면 표준 파일 보기 명령을 사용하세요.
# View the entire log
cat logs/super-shell-mcp.log
# Follow log updates in real-time
tail -f logs/super-shell-mcp.log로그 내용
서버 시작 및 구성
명령 실행 요청 및 결과
승인 워크플로 이벤트(보류, 승인, 거부)
오류 조건 및 문제 해결 정보
화이트리스트 관리
문제 : 허용 목록에 사용자 지정 명령을 추가해야 함
해결 방법 : add_to_whitelist 도구를 사용하여 사용자 환경에 맞는 명령을 추가하세요.
이 MCP 서버는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 라이선스가 부여됩니다. 즉, MIT 라이선스의 약관에 따라 소프트웨어를 자유롭게 사용, 수정 및 배포할 수 있습니다. 자세한 내용은 프로젝트 저장소의 LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.
Add a command to the whitelist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to whitelist | |
| securityLevel | Yes | Security level for the command | |
| description | No | Description of the command |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't explain what happens upon invocation—e.g., whether it's a mutation, requires permissions, has side effects like notifications, or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies a security list.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of modifying a security whitelist, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for safe tool invocation in this context.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (command, securityLevel, description) with details like enum values for securityLevel. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 action ('Add') and resource ('command to the whitelist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_security_level' or 'remove_from_whitelist', which prevents a perfect score.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_security_level' or 'approve_command'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the command must be pending or already exist, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Approve a pending command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes | ID of the command to approve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Approve' implies a mutation that changes state, but the description doesn't clarify what happens after approval (e.g., does it trigger execution, log the action, or require additional steps?), potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely role in a security/command workflow (inferred from sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome of approval, how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'execute_command'), or any system constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective 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 100%, with the single parameter 'commandId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'commandId' refers to a pending command, which is already inferred from the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('approve') and the target resource ('a pending command'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'deny_command' beyond the opposite action, nor does it explain what 'approve' entails in this context versus simply executing or modifying the command.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deny_command' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., that the command must be in a pending state) or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Deny a pending command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes | ID of the command to deny | |
| reason | No | Reason for denial |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('deny') but doesn't explain what 'deny' entails—whether it's reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what the outcome is, or if there are side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks context on what 'deny' means operationally, making it difficult to use correctly without additional information.
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, with clear documentation for both parameters ('commandId' and 'reason'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 action ('deny') and the target ('a pending command'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_command' or explain what 'deny' means in this context beyond the basic action.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_command' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending command ID) or context about what happens after denial. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a shell command on the current platform
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to execute | |
| args | No | Command arguments |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details such as security implications, permission requirements, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes shell commands, which can have high-risk behaviors.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of executing shell commands (potentially high-risk with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address security, permissions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'command' and 'args'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('Execute') and resource ('a shell command on the current platform'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'approve_command' or 'deny_command', which appear to be related to command management but have different functions.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'approve_command' and 'deny_command', it's unclear if 'execute_command' requires approval, operates independently, or has specific prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the list of commands pending approval
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all pending commands or a filtered subset. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with no parameters, the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks context about what 'pending approval' means, how commands are structured, or what the return value looks like. For a tool in a security/command approval context, more completeness would be helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('list of commands pending approval'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'approve_command' or 'deny_command', but the verb 'Get' implies a read operation rather than an action on the commands themselves.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_whitelist' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for pending commands, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about the current platform and shell
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does 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 the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., OS version, shell type, environment details), whether it requires permissions, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get information'), making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves system information. It doesn't explain what specific data is returned (e.g., platform details, shell version) or the format of the output, which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. This leaves too much ambiguity for practical 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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for tools with no parameters.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current platform and shell'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'execute_command' or 'get_pending_commands'), which focus on command execution and management rather than platform metadata.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., use for system diagnostics or compatibility checks), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the list of whitelisted commands
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does 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 'Get the list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the list of whitelisted commands') and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word 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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the return format (e.g., structure of the whitelist, data types) and behavioral traits. It meets the basic requirement for a simple read operation but doesn't provide enough information for confident use without additional context.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools where the schema already covers everything.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('list of whitelisted commands'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_pending_commands' or 'add_to_whitelist', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to infer basic distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or contrast with sibling tools like 'get_pending_commands' (which might retrieve unapproved commands) or 'add_to_whitelist' (which modifies the list). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a command from the whitelist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to remove from whitelist |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a removal action, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the command isn't in the whitelist. This leaves significant gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., confirmation message, error responses), doesn't mention security implications, and provides no context about the whitelist system it operates within.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'command' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 action ('remove') and target resource ('a command from the whitelist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deny_command' or 'update_security_level' which might have overlapping security functions, preventing a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deny_command' or 'update_security_level'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., whether the command must already be whitelisted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update the security level of a whitelisted command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to update | |
| securityLevel | Yes | New security level for the command |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., if command isn't whitelisted), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a security-related 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, making it easy to parse while conveying essential purpose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context: what 'security level' means operationally, how changes affect command execution, error handling, or response format. Given the security-sensitive nature and sibling tools, more completeness is needed.
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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'command' refers to a whitelisted one. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.
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 action ('Update') and the target ('security level of a whitelisted command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'add_to_whitelist' or 'remove_from_whitelist', which also modify command permissions but in different ways.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the command must already be whitelisted), contrast with 'approve_command'/'deny_command' for pending requests, or explain when changing security levels is appropriate versus adding/removing from the whitelist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_to_whitelistapprove_commanddeny_commandexecute_commandget_pending_commandsget_platform_infoget_whitelistremove_from_whitelistupdate_security_levelScored across 9 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, add_to_whitelist and remove_from_whitelist handle whitelist modifications, while approve_command and deny_command manage pending commands, and execute_command performs command execution. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as add_to_whitelist, get_pending_commands, and update_security_level. This predictability aids agent understanding and navigation without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a shell security management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow, from command execution and approval to whitelist and platform management, avoiding bloat or thin coverage.
The tool set provides complete coverage for shell command security management, including CRUD operations for the whitelist (add, get, remove, update), a full lifecycle for pending commands (get, approve, deny), and core utilities like execute_command and get_platform_info. No obvious gaps exist for the domain.
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
The MCP server for Azure DevOps, bringing the power of Azure DevOps directly to your agents.
The Remote MCP server acts as a standardized bridge between LLM applications (like Claude, ChatGPT, and Cursor) and external services, enabling AI agents to access external tools and resources. Its primary capability is providing a centralized search tool to discover other MCP servers and their respective tools. Unlike local implementations, it runs remotely with OAuth authentication and permission controls for security.
The MCP server that vets MCP servers: identity, risk grade and per-tool risk before you install.