Execute non-interactive shell commands and return exit code plus trimmed stdout/stderr. Set a working directory or timeout to run terminal tasks from an AI assistant.
Ejecuta un comando de shell (sin entrada interactiva). Devuelve código de salida, stdout y stderr recortados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comando | Yes | ||
| directorio | No | ||
| timeout_seg | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-interactive constraint and the return shape, but for arbitrary shell execution it says nothing about permissions/privilege requirements, sandboxing, destructive potential, or what happens to the timeout default of 30s when exceeded.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It earns its brevity, though the brevity is partly the problem given how much is left unstated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained (the description repeats them anyway). But for a high-risk execution tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition omits privileges, timeout behavior, working-directory semantics, and non-interactive failure modes.
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 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains 'comando' syntax, what 'directorio' controls (working directory vs. sandbox root), or what 'timeout_seg' does on expiry; only the required/optional split is inferable from the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: executes a shell command. The parenthetical 'sin entrada interactiva' implicitly distinguishes it from the interactive-input siblings (astrax_tecla, astrax_escribir), but no sibling is named explicitly. Purpose is clear without needing to open the schema.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite seventeen sibling tools. The 'sin entrada interactiva' note hints at a boundary with the input-emulation tools but never states when to prefer this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.