Komodo MCP Server

komodo_execute_command

Execute shell commands on a specified server via terminal and return stdout, stderr, and exit code for remote diagnostics and management.

Instructions

Execute a command on a server via terminal.

Args: server: Server ID where the command should be executed command: Command to execute (e.g., 'ls -la', 'docker ps') options: Optional execution options (e.g., working directory, timeout, environment variables)

Returns: Command execution result including stdout, stderr, and exit code

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	Yes
`command`	Yes
`options`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For arbitrary command execution, it omits critical traits: permission/auth requirements, that it can mutate or destroy server state, and that it is effectively unconstrained. It only notes the return shape, which the output schema already covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by labeled Args/Returns sections with no filler. Slightly redundant to restate Returns when an output schema exists, but overall tight and scannable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is surplus, and parameters are well covered. However, with no annotations and an inherently destructive operation, the description leaves the safety/permission profile entirely unstated, which is a meaningful gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: server is identified as the Server ID, command is given with examples ('ls -la', 'docker ps'), and options is expanded to working directory, timeout, and environment variables beyond the schema's bare open object.

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?

States a specific verb (execute) and resource (command on a server via terminal), which is clearly distinct from the CRUD/run/stop siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like komodo_run_build or komodo_run_deployment, but the arbitrary-command semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for ad-hoc shell commands versus the dedicated run_deployment/run_build tools.

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