AgentTasker

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Execute

execute

Destructive

Runs a single opt-in shell command on the AgentTasker host with configurable working directory, environment variables, timeout, and output limits for controlled task automation.

Instructions

Run one opt-in shell command on the server host.

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": {
      "task_type": "<task_type>",
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No	Existing absolute directory on the execution host
`env`	No
`name`	No
`command`	Yes	Bash on the MCP server host; no retries; requires --allow-shell
`timeout`	No
`task_type`	Yes
`depends_on`	No
`output_mode`	No		compact
`max_output_bytes`	No	Retained tail bytes per stream

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No
`error`	No
`status`	No
`results`	No
`batch_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that execution is 'opt-in' and runs on the server host, but it omits important behavior such as no-retry semantics and output truncation. With annotations carrying the core risk disclosure, a moderate score is appropriate.

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?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core action and scope immediately. Brevity here is a structural strength, even though the content is under-specified elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex, destructive, nine-parameter tool with siblings, yet the description provides only one sentence. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but prerequisites, batching alternatives, and parameter behavior are missing. The definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this safely without relying heavily on the schema and annotations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the nine parameters beyond the general notion of running a command. It adds no meaning for env, timeout, depends_on, output_mode, task_type, name, or cwd. For a tool with this many parameters and low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: run a shell command on the server host. The word 'one' hints at single-command scope, which implicitly separates it from execute_batch. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against the batch siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. 'Opt-in' vaguely signals a prerequisite, but an agent must infer when to choose execute versus execute_batch. There is no routing guidance comparable to naming the sibling tool and its selection condition.

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

Deploy Server