Execute a single command in an active JumpServer asset session through an acquired KoKo shell, with configurable timeouts for command completion and output settling.
Run one command through an already acquired managed KoKo shell.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| session_handle | Yes | ||
| total_timeout_seconds | No | ||
| settle_timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does 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 does not mention whether the command execution may have side effects, whether it blocks, how timeouts work, or what happens to the shell session. The description only names the operation without explaining its 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too terse, omitting required context that would help in safe invocation, so it earns slightly below top marks.
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 command execution tool that can have side effects and includes timeout parameters and an output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, return behavior, and timeout semantics, making it inadequate for safe and correct 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 0% for all 4 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'one command' and 'already acquired' but fails to explain session_handle, command, or the two timeout parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.
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 (Run), the resource (one command), and the context (already acquired managed KoKo shell). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jms_acquire_terminal_session (session acquisition) and jms_read_terminal_output (reading output).
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jms_send_terminal_input or jms_acquire_terminal_session. The phrase 'already acquired' implies a prerequisite but does not exclude or recommend any other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.