Runs a single shell command on a specified remote connection, with server-side blocking of dangerous commands and heavy operations on cluster login nodes.
在远程连接上执行单条 shell 命令。危险命令与集群登录节点重操作会被服务端拒绝。
Args: connection: 连接 label（见 connection_list） command: 要执行的 shell 命令 timeout: 超时秒数（默认 60）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| connection | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context: dangerous commands and heavy operations on cluster login nodes are rejected server-side, and there is a timeout with an implied default. This is exactly the kind of constraint beyond annotations that an agent needs before invoking.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block that earns its space given the zero schema coverage. No filler sentences.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and parameters plus server-side rejection rules are covered. Remaining unknowns (interactivity, working directory, session reuse) are minor for a single-command executor.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents all three parameters: connection (label, cross-referenced to connection_list), command, and timeout in seconds. One minor discrepancy: the description says default 60 while the schema declares default null.
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 single shell command on a remote connection. The scope (single command, remote connection) is clear enough to distinguish it from batch/job siblings like submit or jobs, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope statement and it points to connection_list for obtaining a valid connection label, but it never states when to prefer this tool over session-based or job-submission alternatives among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.