hardened-terminal-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTMCP_JAIL_ROOT | No | Directory commands are jailed to (default: process cwd) | . |
| HTMCP_POLICY_FILE | No | Path to policy.toml (default: policy.toml) | policy.toml |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| run_commandA | Evaluate Denied commands are never executed. |
| explain_commandA | Dry run: return the policy verdict without executing anything. stdout/stderr are always empty and exit_code is always None. This function does not reference the executor at all, so it is structurally impossible for it to run a command (see test_explain_command_cannot_execute). |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one executes commands after policy evaluation, the other only simulates to show the policy verdict. Their descriptions explicitly highlight the difference, making it impossible to confuse them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (run_command, explain_command), which is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the surface is very small. While it might suffice for a minimal sandboxed terminal, the server's name suggests broader functionality, so the count feels slightly lacking but not severely mismatched.
The tools cover execution and policy checking, but there is no ability to manage policies (e.g., view, edit, list) or handle command history. This leaves notable gaps that agents would need to work around.