Execute a saved command template with variable substitution to automate terminal tasks that require different values each time.
Execute a saved command template with variable substitution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the template to run | |
| variables | No | Object with variable names and their values |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a side-effecting execution but never states whether the command's output is returned inline or must be fetched via get_command_output, what happens if the template name is unknown, or whether missing variables error out. These are the traits an agent needs before invoking it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context are absent.
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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return behavior, error conditions, and how the result relates to get_command_output. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently in a side-effecting context.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The phrase 'with variable substitution' adds a little meaning about how the variables object is applied, but does not specify format or substitution syntax beyond 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 and resource: 'Execute a saved command template', plus the key mechanic of variable substitution. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling execute_command, leaving the agent to guess which one reads a stored template versus running a raw command.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named despite many overlapping siblings (execute_command, preview_command, list_templates, save_template). The agent must infer that a template must already be saved and that list_templates is how to find the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.