PowerShell Exec MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set has clear groupings but some overlap exists. The BigFix and Intune script generation tools have distinct purposes (relevance/detection vs action/remediation), but 'generate_custom_script' and 'generate_script_from_template' could be confused with each other and with the specialized script generators. The system monitoring tools (get_event_logs, get_processes, etc.) are clearly distinct from script generation tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., generate_bigfix_action_script, get_event_logs, run_powershell). The main deviation is 'ensure_directory' which uses a different verb style than others, but overall the naming is predictable and readable across the set.
Tool Count4/5
14 tools is reasonable for a PowerShell execution server with script generation and system monitoring capabilities. The count feels slightly high but justified by covering both BigFix and Intune ecosystems plus general PowerShell execution. Some tools like 'run_powershell' and 'run_powershell_with_progress' could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The server provides good coverage for PowerShell script generation (BigFix, Intune, custom) and system monitoring. Minor gaps exist: there's no tool for managing scheduled tasks or registry operations which are common PowerShell domains, and the script generation tools focus heavily on enterprise deployment scenarios while lacking simpler one-off script creation options beyond 'generate_custom_script'.
Average 3.8/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the tool 'generates' a script and optionally saves it, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only/destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or how it handles invalid inputs. For a generative tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations, but it's verbose with repetitive formatting. Sentences like 'Args:' and 'Returns:' are redundant with the schema. While informative, it could be more streamlined by focusing on value-added details rather than restating obvious parameter names.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters but misses behavioral context (e.g., generation limits, error handling). The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but the description should still address usage scenarios and constraints for a generative tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Natural language description of what the script should do'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details on 'script_type' values (e.g., what 'file_ops' entails) or 'parameters' structure, preventing a perfect score.
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: 'Generate a custom PowerShell script based on description.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('custom PowerShell script'), and mechanism ('based on description'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_script_from_template' or 'run_powershell', which would require a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'generate_script_from_template' (for template-based generation) or 'run_powershell' (for executing scripts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a timeout parameter but doesn't explain what happens on timeout, whether the tool requires admin privileges, if it's read-only, or what format the returned information takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with system services.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than listed as bullet points.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks behavioral context like permission requirements or error handling, which is important for a system tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' supports wildcards, 'status' accepts values like 'Running' and 'Stopped', and 'timeout' has a range and default, effectively documenting all three parameters that the schema leaves undescribed.
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 with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('running services'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_processes' or 'get_event_logs' beyond the resource type, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'get_processes' or 'get_event_logs', nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a timeout parameter with constraints (1-300 seconds, default 60), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important aspects like what permissions are required, whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if properties are invalid, or how the information is returned. For a system information tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining the properties parameter, and explaining the timeout parameter. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear Args: section. There's minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job. It explains both parameters' semantics and constraints, which addresses the schema coverage gap. However, for a system information tool that likely requires specific permissions and has behavioral nuances, the description should provide more context about what 'system information' includes and any limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond what the schema provides. For 'properties', it specifies they are 'ComputerInfo properties to retrieve' and clarifies they're optional. For 'timeout', it provides the valid range (1-300) and default value (60), which aren't in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining both parameters' purposes and constraints.
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 'Get system information' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_event_logs, get_processes, and get_running_services by focusing on general system information rather than specific subsystems. However, it doesn't specify what type of system information (hardware, OS, configuration) or what 'ComputerInfo properties' encompasses.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like get_event_logs or get_processes, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'detailed progress reporting' and 'execution details' in the returns, which adds some context beyond basic execution. However, it lacks critical information such as security implications, error handling, side effects, or performance characteristics for a tool that executes arbitrary PowerShell code.
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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of 'detailed progress reporting' in both the description and returns section.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary code) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about security, errors, and side effects. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'code' is 'PowerShell code to execute', 'timeout' is 'Command timeout in seconds (1-300, default 60)', and 'ctx' is 'MCP context for logging and progress reporting'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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: 'Execute PowerShell commands with detailed progress reporting.' This specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('PowerShell commands'), and a key feature ('detailed progress reporting'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'run_powershell' by emphasizing progress reporting, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over the sibling 'run_powershell' or other script-generation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool ensures directory existence and returns a path, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it creates directories if missing, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves file system mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (involving file system operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details that annotations would normally provide, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that the 'path' parameter is used to specify the directory to ensure, providing context not in the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 with a specific verb ('ensure') and resource ('directory'), explaining it checks existence and returns an absolute path. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are unrelated to directory management, so the distinction isn't necessary here.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for directory existence checks, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, error handling, or comparisons to other file system operations in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a timeout parameter which hints at potential execution constraints, but doesn't describe what happens on timeout, error conditions, permission requirements, rate limits, or the format/structure of returned logs. The description states it 'gets' logs but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has any side effects.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter documentation. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The formatting with 'Args:' header and bullet-like parameter explanations makes it scannable, though it could be slightly more polished in presentation.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and system-level access to event logs, the description should provide more behavioral context about permissions, error handling, and typical use cases. The parameter documentation is excellent, but overall context about the tool's operation is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters: logname examples (System, Application, Security), newest default and meaning, level mapping (1: Critical, etc.), and timeout range with default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides essential semantic context.
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: 'Get Windows event logs' specifies the verb (get) and resource (Windows event logs). It distinguishes from siblings like get_processes or get_system_info by focusing specifically on event logs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar logging tools that might exist in other contexts.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, dependencies, or specific use cases. While the sibling tools are mostly script generation or system monitoring tools, there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'generates' a script and optionally saves it, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. The timeout parameter hints at execution constraints, but this isn't elaborated. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-like 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It efficiently covers key aspects in minimal space, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and hints at outputs, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., file handling, permissions) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a template-based script generator, this leaves gaps in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter concisely: 'template_name' (name without extension), 'parameters' (dictionary for replacement), 'output_path' (optional save location), and 'timeout' (range and default). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.
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: 'Generate a PowerShell script from a template.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('PowerShell script'), and mechanism ('from a template'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_custom_script' or 'run_powershell', which leaves room for confusion about when to choose this specific template-based approach.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for script generation (e.g., 'generate_custom_script', 'generate_bigfix_action_script') and execution (e.g., 'run_powershell'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or trade-offs. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool does (get process information) and includes parameter details that hint at behavior (filtering, sorting, timeout). However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires admin privileges, what format the output returns, if it's read-only, potential side effects, or error conditions. The timeout parameter description adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a parameter section with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like structure could be slightly more polished for maximum clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and good parameter coverage in the description, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose and all parameters thoroughly. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidance relative to siblings, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains what each parameter does, includes examples (e.g., 'CPU, WorkingSet' for sort_by), specifies constraints ('1-300, default 60' for timeout), and mentions features like wildcard support. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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: 'Get information about running processes.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_logs or get_system_info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_running_services, which might be a related sibling.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_running_services or get_system_info, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only implicit guidance is through parameter descriptions, but no explicit usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'securely' which hints at safety considerations, and describes the return value format. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions required, side effects, or what 'securely' specifically entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns), uses bullet-like formatting for parameters, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence serves a specific purpose in explaining the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary PowerShell code) and no annotations, the description does well by documenting all parameters and the return format. However, it could provide more context about security implications, execution environment, or error scenarios to be fully complete for such a powerful tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., timeout range 1-300 with default 60). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('PowerShell commands'), plus the qualifier 'securely' which distinguishes it from generic execution tools. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (executing PowerShell code) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling 'run_powershell_with_progress'. It provides general guidance but lacks specific differentiation from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does an excellent job describing what the tool generates (PowerShell scripts with specific best practices like exit codes, logging, restore points) and includes important warnings about testing in safe environments and making actions idempotent. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most critical behavioral aspects for a script generation tool.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, best practices, warnings, references, args, returns, example, tips) and front-loads the most important information. While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed reference URLs could be trimmed for conciseness. Every sentence adds value, but the overall length is substantial for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of generating BigFix action scripts, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, best practices, warnings, parameter semantics, return values, examples, and tips. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The description addresses all aspects needed for an AI agent to correctly use this tool, including sibling tool differentiation and implementation guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 4 parameters. Each parameter is clearly documented in the Args section with examples and constraints (e.g., 'Clear description of what the script should accomplish', 'PowerShell code that performs the action', 'Optional file path', 'Command timeout in seconds (1-300, default 60)'). The example further illustrates parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a BigFix action script to perform remediation or configuration changes.' It specifies the technology (PowerShell), the platform (IBM BigFix), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'generate_bigfix_script_pair' as an alternative for complete deployments. The verb 'generate' and resource 'BigFix action script' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states: 'For complete BigFix deployments, you need BOTH relevance and action scripts. Consider using 'generate_bigfix_script_pair' instead to create both scripts together.' This directly addresses when to choose this tool over its sibling, and the Tips section offers additional usage advice like testing in safe environments first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does an excellent job describing what the tool creates (PowerShell relevance scripts following IBM BigFix best practices), including specific behavioral traits like proper output format, logging integration, error handling, and optimization for frequent evaluations. The only minor gap is it doesn't explicitly mention whether this is a read-only or write operation, though 'generate' implies creation.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized for a complex tool. It starts with the core purpose, then provides best practices, usage tips, parameter documentation, and a comprehensive example. While lengthy, every section adds value. The only minor deduction is that some information (like the IBM references) could potentially be trimmed without losing core functionality guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, provides a detailed example, and includes practical tips. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it adequately addresses all other aspects needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. Each parameter (description, relevance_logic, output_path, timeout) is clearly explained with examples and usage guidance. The description adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, including format requirements, default values, and practical examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a BigFix relevance script to determine if computers need action.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('BigFix relevance script'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_bigfix_action_script' by focusing on relevance scripts specifically. The tip about needing both relevance and action scripts further clarifies its role in the ecosystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tip states: 'For complete BigFix deployments, you need BOTH relevance and action scripts. Consider using 'generate_bigfix_script_pair' to create both scripts together with matching logic.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for relevance scripts only) versus when to use the sibling tool (for paired scripts).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 thoroughly describes behavioral traits: it generates scripts following IBM BigFix best practices (e.g., proper output formats, log integration, system restore points, error handling, silent execution), includes references for development, and provides detailed tips on testing, scoping, and implementation considerations. This goes well beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately front-loaded with purpose and guidelines, but it's overly long with extensive reference links, tips, and a verbose example. While informative, some sections (like the full list of references) could be condensed or moved elsewhere, as not every sentence earns its place for core tool understanding. The structure is logical but not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generating deployment scripts with best practices), no annotations, and an output schema that documents the return format, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter semantics, examples, and tips, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's scope and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'description: Clear description of what the scripts should accomplish'), provides formatting guidance (e.g., using specific functions like 'Complete-Relevance'), and includes an extensive example showing parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly detail all parameter constraints (e.g., timeout range 1-300 is mentioned but not emphasized).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a complete pair of BigFix relevance and action scripts for deployment.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('BigFix relevance and action scripts'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's the 'RECOMMENDED tool for BigFix fixlet creation' that creates both required scripts, unlike separate relevance or action script generators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the RECOMMENDED tool for BigFix fixlet creation as it creates both required scripts.' It distinguishes from alternatives by implying that for BigFix fixlets, this integrated pair generation is preferred over using separate sibling tools like 'generate_bigfix_action_script' or 'generate_bigfix_relevance_script' individually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the script follows enterprise-grade practices (exit codes, event log integration, system restore points, error handling, no user interaction), runs silently, and includes timeout handling. It also mentions testing recommendations and references Microsoft documentation. However, it doesn't explicitly state potential side effects like system changes or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and key features. It uses bullet points for best practices, includes important warnings and alternatives, provides parameter explanations, an example, and tips. While comprehensive, some sections (like the extensive Microsoft references list) could be trimmed without losing essential information, making it slightly verbose but still highly usable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generating scripts with enterprise features), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates return types, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, examples, and tips. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on other aspects, making it fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all parameters: 'description' clarifies it's for what the script remediates, 'remediation_logic' specifies PowerShell code with usage of 'Complete-Remediation', 'output_path' explains optional file saving, and 'timeout' defines command timeout range and default. The example further illustrates parameter usage, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a Microsoft Intune remediation script with enterprise-grade features.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('Microsoft Intune remediation script'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate_intune_script_pair' by focusing on remediation-only scripts. The description explicitly mentions what the script does (follows best practices like exit codes, event log integration, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states: '⚠️ IMPORTANT: For complete Intune compliance, you need BOTH detection and remediation scripts. Consider using 'generate_intune_script_pair' instead to create both scripts together.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for remediation-only scripts) and when to prefer an alternative (for paired scripts), helping the agent make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 thoroughly explains what the tool does: generates scripts following best practices like proper exit codes, event log integration, system restore points, error handling, and silent execution. It also details the return format ('Dictionary containing both scripts'), timeout behavior, and output options, providing comprehensive behavioral context beyond basic functionality.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and key features. However, it includes extensive sections like Microsoft references and a detailed example that, while helpful, make it longer than necessary. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy (e.g., repeating exit code details) slightly reduces conciseness. Overall, it's efficient but could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generating paired scripts with best practices), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies return structure, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter semantics, examples, and tips, ensuring the agent has all necessary information to use the tool correctly without relying on external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining each parameter: 'description' specifies what scripts should do, 'detection_logic' and 'remediation_logic' define PowerShell code with usage examples, 'output_dir' indicates optional saving, and 'timeout' sets command limits. The example illustrates parameter usage in context, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a complete pair of Microsoft Intune detection and remediation scripts.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('pair of Microsoft Intune detection and remediation scripts'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's the 'RECOMMENDED tool for Intune compliance' and creates both required scripts, unlike tools like 'generate_intune_remediation_script' which might only handle one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the RECOMMENDED tool for Intune compliance as it creates both required scripts.' It implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning sibling tools like 'generate_intune_remediation_script' for cases where only remediation is needed. The 'Tips' section adds context on when to use it effectively, such as testing in controlled environments and considering remediation impacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DynamicEndpoints/PowerShell-Exec-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server