Skip to main content
Glama
A-Niranjan

MCP Filesystem Server

by A-Niranjan

execute_command

Execute system commands with security validation to perform basic operations, capture output, and manage execution within time limits.

Instructions

Execute a system command with security restrictions. Validates commands for safety and provides detailed output. Limited to basic system operations with security checks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe command to execute
workingDirNoWorking directory for command execution
timeoutNoMaximum execution time in milliseconds (max 30s)
captureOutputNoWhether to capture and return command output

Implementation Reference

  • Primary handler function that performs command validation, executes the command using child_process.exec with timeout and cwd, captures stdout/stderr/exitCode, logs metrics.
    export async function executeCommand(
      args: z.infer<typeof ExecuteCommandArgsSchema>,
      _config: Config
    ): Promise<{ stdout: string; stderr: string; exitCode: number }> {
      const endMetric = metrics.startOperation('execute_command')
      try {
        await logger.debug(`Executing command: ${args.command}`, { args })
    
        // Validate the command for security
        validateCommand(args.command)
    
        // Set working directory or use current directory
        const options = {
          cwd: args.workingDir || process.cwd(),
          timeout: args.timeout,
          encoding: 'utf-8' as const,
        }
    
        try {
          // Execute the command
          const { stdout, stderr } = await exec(args.command, options)
          await logger.debug(`Command executed successfully: ${args.command}`, {
            stdout: stdout.substring(0, 100) + (stdout.length > 100 ? '...' : ''),
          })
    
          endMetric()
          return {
            stdout,
            stderr,
            exitCode: 0,
          }
        } catch (error: any) {
          // Handle command execution errors
          const stderr = error.stderr || ''
          const stdout = error.stdout || ''
          const exitCode = error.code || 1
    
          await logger.warn(`Command execution failed: ${args.command}`, {
            exitCode,
            stderr: stderr.substring(0, 100) + (stderr.length > 100 ? '...' : ''),
          })
    
          endMetric()
          return {
            stdout,
            stderr,
            exitCode,
          }
        }
      } catch (error) {
        metrics.recordError('execute_command')
        throw error
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the execute_command tool: command (required), workingDir (optional), timeout (optional, default 5000ms, max 30s), captureOutput (optional boolean).
     * Schema for execute_command arguments
     */
    export const ExecuteCommandArgsSchema = z.object({
      command: z.string().describe('The command to execute'),
      workingDir: z.string().optional().describe('Working directory for command execution'),
      timeout: z
        .number()
        .int()
        .positive()
        .max(30000)
        .default(5000)
        .describe('Maximum execution time in milliseconds (max 30s)'),
      captureOutput: z.boolean().default(true).describe('Whether to capture and return command output'),
    })
  • src/index.ts:348-353 (registration)
    Tool registration in the list_tools response, defining name, description, and inputSchema converted from ExecuteCommandArgsSchema.
    name: 'execute_command',
    description:
      'Execute a system command with security restrictions. ' +
      'Validates commands for safety and provides detailed output. ' +
      'Limited to basic system operations with security checks.',
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(ExecuteCommandArgsSchema) as ToolInput,
  • MCP call_tool dispatcher case for 'execute_command': parses args with schema, calls the executeCommand implementation, formats response with stdout/stderr/exitCode.
    case 'execute_command': {
      const parsed = ExecuteCommandArgsSchema.safeParse(a)
      if (!parsed.success) {
        throw new FileSystemError(`Invalid arguments for ${name}`, 'INVALID_ARGS', undefined, {
          errors: parsed.error.format(),
        })
      }
    
      const result = await executeCommand(parsed.data, config)
    
      endMetric()
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `Command execution completed with exit code: ${result.exitCode}\n\nSTDOUT:\n${result.stdout}\n\nSTDERR:\n${result.stderr}`,
          },
        ],
      }
    }
  • Helper function to validate command safety: checks against forbidden substrings and safe regex pattern, throws FileSystemError if unsafe.
    function validateCommand(command: string): boolean {
      // Check for forbidden commands
      if (FORBIDDEN_COMMANDS.some((forbidden) => command.includes(forbidden))) {
        throw new FileSystemError(
          `Command contains forbidden operations`,
          'FORBIDDEN_COMMAND',
          undefined,
          { command }
        )
      }
    
      // Validate command against safe pattern
      if (!SAFE_COMMAND_REGEX.test(command)) {
        throw new FileSystemError(
          `Command contains potentially unsafe characters`,
          'UNSAFE_COMMAND',
          undefined,
          { command }
        )
      }
    
      return true
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: security validation, safety checks, and output detail. However, it lacks specifics on what security restrictions apply, what constitutes 'basic' operations, error handling, or permission requirements. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects undefined.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: purpose, validation, and scope. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. No redundant or wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a command execution tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers purpose and security aspects but lacks details on output format, error responses, exact security limitations, and comparison with sibling tools. Given the complexity and absence of structured fields, it should do more to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as executing system commands with security restrictions and validation. It specifies 'basic system operations' which distinguishes it from more specialized siblings like curl_request or edit_file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with bash_execute which appears similar.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions 'security restrictions' and 'limited to basic system operations' which provides some context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bash_execute or bash_pipe. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative usage scenarios are provided.

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