Check whether a command requires TTY/stdin before running it, then return a safety level and non-interactive alternatives to prevent hangs or blocked execution.
Check if a command is interactive (requires TTY/stdin) before executing it. Returns safety level: safe, cautious, interactive, or blocked with suggestions for non-interactive alternatives
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to analyse for interactivity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v8.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full safety-profile burden. It discloses four return levels and mentions suggestions, but does not state whether the command is actually executed, whether analysis is static or live, or whether there are side effects or permission requirements.
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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and result categories. There is no extraneous text.
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 one-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description gives the key return categories and mentions non-interactive suggestions. It omits definitions of the safety levels and any execution or analysis caveat.
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?
There is only one parameter and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage. The description does not add syntax or format details about the command beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a command') and states the condition being tested (interactive/TTY). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, though 'before executing it' implies the relationship to execute_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?
'before executing it' establishes clear timing for when to use the tool. It does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives such as preview_command or suggest_command.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.