包括的なセキュリティ機能を使用して制御されたコマンドライン操作を実行するための安全なモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー実装。
このMCPサーバーは、コマンドホワイトリスト、パス検証、実行制御などの堅牢なセキュリティ対策により、安全なコマンドライン実行を実現します。セキュリティを維持しながら、LLMアプリケーションへの制御されたCLIアクセスを提供するのに最適です。
Related MCP server: Windows CLI MCP Server
🔒 厳格な検証による安全なコマンド実行
⚙️ 'all' オプションでコマンドとフラグのホワイトリストを設定可能
🛡️ パストラバーサルの防止と検証
🚫 シェルオペレータインジェクション保護
⏱️ 実行タイムアウトと長さの制限
📝 詳細なエラーレポート
🔄非同期操作のサポート
🎯 作業ディレクトリの制限と検証
環境変数を使用してサーバーを構成します。
変数 | 説明 | デフォルト |
| コマンド実行のベースディレクトリ（必須） | なし（必須） |
| 許可されたコマンドのコンマ区切りリストまたは「すべて」 |
|
| 許可されるフラグのカンマ区切りリストまたは「すべて」 |
|
| 最大コマンド文字列長 |
|
| コマンド実行タイムアウト（秒） |
|
| シェル演算子（&&、 |
注意: ALLOWED_COMMANDSまたはALLOWED_FLAGSを 'all' に設定すると、それぞれ任意のコマンドまたはフラグが許可されます。
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の CLI MCP サーバーを自動的にインストールするには:
npx @smithery/cli install cli-mcp-server --client claude許可されたディレクトリ内でホワイトリストに登録された CLI コマンドを実行します。
入力スキーマ:
{
"command": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Single command to execute (e.g., 'ls -l' or 'cat file.txt')"
}
}セキュリティに関する注意事項:
シェル演算子 (&&、|、>、>>) はデフォルトではサポートされていませんが、 ALLOW_SHELL_OPERATORS=trueで有効にすることができます。
ALLOWED_COMMANDS='all' でない限り、コマンドはホワイトリストに登録する必要があります
ALLOWED_FLAGS='all' でない限り、フラグはホワイトリストに登録する必要があります
すべてのパスはALLOWED_DIRの範囲内であることが検証されます
現在のセキュリティ構成と制限を表示します。これには以下が含まれます。
作業ディレクトリ
許可されたコマンド
許可されたフラグ
セキュリティ制限（最大コマンド長とタイムアウト）
~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します:
開発/非公開サーバーの構成
{
"mcpServers": {
"cli-mcp-server": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"<path/to/the/repo>/cli-mcp-server",
"run",
"cli-mcp-server"
],
"env": {
"ALLOWED_DIR": "</your/desired/dir>",
"ALLOWED_COMMANDS": "ls,cat,pwd,echo",
"ALLOWED_FLAGS": "-l,-a,--help,--version",
"MAX_COMMAND_LENGTH": "1024",
"COMMAND_TIMEOUT": "30",
"ALLOW_SHELL_OPERATORS": "false"
}
}
}
}公開サーバーの構成
{
"mcpServers": {
"cli-mcp-server": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"cli-mcp-server"
],
"env": {
"ALLOWED_DIR": "</your/desired/dir>",
"ALLOWED_COMMANDS": "ls,cat,pwd,echo",
"ALLOWED_FLAGS": "-l,-a,--help,--version",
"MAX_COMMAND_LENGTH": "1024",
"COMMAND_TIMEOUT": "30",
"ALLOW_SHELL_OPERATORS": "false"
}
}
}
}動作しない、または UI に表示されない場合は、
uv cleanを使用してキャッシュをクリアしてください。
✅ 「すべて」オプションによるコマンドホワイトリストの適用
✅ 「すべて」オプションによるフラグ検証
✅ パストラバーサルの防止と正規化
✅ シェルオペレータのブロック（ ALLOW_SHELL_OPERATORS=trueによるオプトインサポート付き）
✅ コマンドの長さ制限
✅ 実行タイムアウト
✅ 作業ディレクトリの制限
✅ シンボリックリンクの解決と検証
サーバーは、次の詳細なエラー メッセージを提供します。
セキュリティ違反 (CommandSecurityError)
コマンドタイムアウト (CommandTimeoutError)
無効なコマンド形式
パスセキュリティ違反
実行失敗 (CommandExecutionError)
一般的なコマンドエラー (CommandError)
Python 3.10以上
MCPプロトコルライブラリ
配布用のパッケージを準備するには:
依存関係を同期し、ロックファイルを更新します。
uv syncパッケージディストリビューションをビルドします。
uv buildこれにより、
dist/ディレクトリにソースとホイールのディストリビューションが作成されます。
PyPI に公開:
uv publish --token {{YOUR_PYPI_API_TOKEN}}MCPサーバーはstdio経由で実行されるため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。最適なデバッグ環境を実現するには、 MCP Inspectorの使用を強くお勧めします。
次のコマンドを使用して、 npm経由で MCP Inspector を起動できます。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory {{your source code local directory}}/cli-mcp-server run cli-mcp-server起動すると、ブラウザでアクセスしてデバッグを開始できる URL がインスペクタに表示されます。
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
詳細情報やサポートが必要な場合は、プロジェクト リポジトリで問題を報告してください。
Allows command (CLI) execution in the directory: /app
Available commands: pwd, ls, cat Available flags: -l, --help, -a
Shell operators (&&, ||, |, >, >>, <, <<, ;) are not supported. Set ALLOW_SHELL_OPERATORS=true to enable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Single command to execute (example: 'ls -l' or 'cat file.txt') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing: execution directory constraint (/app), available commands (pwd, ls, cat), available flags (-l, --help, -a), shell operator restrictions, and how to enable operators. It doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, or output format details.
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?
Four sentences with zero waste - each provides essential information: purpose, available commands/flags, restrictions, and how to lift restrictions. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by operational details.
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 single-parameter command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: execution environment, command/flag constraints, and operator restrictions. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is reasonably complete.
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% with the parameter 'command' well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about what constitutes valid commands (specific examples and restrictions), but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.
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 explicitly states 'Allows command (CLI) execution in the directory: /app' - a specific verb ('execute') with clear resource ('command/CLI') and location constraint ('/app'). It distinguishes from the only sibling tool 'show_security_rules' which appears unrelated to command execution.
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?
The description provides clear context about what commands and flags are available, and when shell operators are/aren't supported. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (though the sibling tool appears unrelated) or provide exclusion guidance beyond the shell operator limitation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show what commands and operations are allowed in this environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('show'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or details output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of security rules and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list, structured data), how to interpret 'allowed,' or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could hint at implicit context like environment scope. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show what commands and operations are allowed in this environment.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource 'commands and operations' with their context 'in this environment.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_command,' which likely executes commands rather than showing allowed ones.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'run_command' or any context for usage, such as checking permissions before execution or troubleshooting. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0run_commandshow_security_rulesScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: run_command executes CLI commands with specific constraints, while show_security_rules displays allowed operations and permissions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (run_command, show_security_rules), which is consistent and readable. The minor deviation is that 'run' and 'show' are different verbs, but this is appropriate given their distinct actions.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a CLI server that presumably handles command execution and environment management. A typical CLI server would benefit from more tools (e.g., for file operations, process management, or configuration), making this count insufficient for the apparent scope.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a CLI server. It lacks basic operations like file creation, deletion, editing, process monitoring, or environment configuration. The run_command tool is limited to a few commands, and there are no tools for managing the CLI environment beyond showing security rules, creating significant gaps for agent workflows.
Scoped agent execution. Server-side credentials, policy, budgets and verifiable receipts.
Security gateway for AI agents: policy, approval, and audited execution, no secrets shared.
Operate Linux, macOS and Windows from your LLM. Every action runs through an auditable allowlist.
Remote MCP for Android CLI agent build gate, structured receipts, audit logs, and reviewer-ready evi
