Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

runCommand

Destructive

Execute an allowlisted command securely, returning stdout, stderr, exit code, and timing. No shell is used for safety.

Instructions

Execute allowlisted command. Returns stdout, stderr, exit code, timing. No shell for security.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "runCommand"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking dir (absolute or workspace-relative, default: workspace root)
argsNoCommand arguments
commandYesCommand basename (must be in allowlist, no paths)
timeoutNoTimeout in milliseconds (default: 30000, max: 600000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world hints. Description adds 'no shell for security' and specifies return values. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (command execution with destructive potential) and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers key return values and security context, though could mention format of outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already describes each parameter adequately.

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?

Description clearly states it executes an allowlisted command and returns stdout, stderr, exit code, and timing. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'allowlisted' and 'no shell for security', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runInTerminal or sendTerminalCommand. It does not explain prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools