tmux-mcp

by WENLIXIAO-CS

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.3
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (create, list, read, send, resize, kill). The only potential confusion is between tmux_read_pane (general pane capture) and tmux_read_cc_pane (specialized for Claude Code monitoring), but their descriptions clearly differentiate them. Remote bash tools are clearly separated by the remote_bash_ prefix.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case with a domain prefix (tmux_, remote_bash_). The pattern is highly predictable (list_*, create_*, rename_*, select_*, etc.) across the entire set.
Tool Count3/5
At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy for a single server, especially since 4 tools handle remote SSH (a separate domain). The tmux-specific tools alone (15) would be well-scoped; adding remote_bash pushes it into the borderline range.
Completeness5/5
The tmux lifecycle is fully covered: create, list, read, update, and delete for sessions, windows, and panes, plus send_keys, split, and resize. The remote_bash set is also complete with connect, execute, disconnect, and list. There are no obvious dead ends.
Average 4/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('create a new session') but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the session is attached, starts a server, or returns session details), auth requirements, or error conditions.
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 description is concise and well-structured with a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It covers the essential action and parameters, but lacks usage context, edge-case handling, and alternatives. It is not as incomplete as a mutation tool with no annotations, but it is far from comprehensive.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for all three parameters, explicitly explaining that 'command' runs in the initial window and 'window_name' names the first window. This goes beyond the schema, which only gives types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new tmux session. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('tmux session'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_create_window or tmux_rename_session.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for creating sessions, prerequisites, or when to prefer tmux_create_window or other session-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Rename', which implies a mutation, but nothing about effects on other windows/sessions, error behavior if the target is invalid, whether the new name must be unique, or if the operation is reversible. No additional context is provided beyond the basic action.
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 description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose statement and a two-line argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the action, every sentence contributes, and there is no fluff. The format is clean and easily parseable by an agent.
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?
For a simple two-parameter rename tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete on purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. Since there are no annotations, the agent is left guessing about prerequisites and side effects. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.
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?
The schema offers no descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section compensates by explaining 'target' as a 'Tmux target for the window (e.g. "session:window")', which adds a concrete format example. 'new_name' is described as 'New name for the window' which is essentially the title but still confirms intent. This adds meaningful value over the bare schema, though more detail on target syntax variations (e.g., just window name) would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Rename a tmux window' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_rename_session by specifying 'window', and the name itself aligns perfectly. No redundancy or ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tmux_rename_session or tmux_create_window. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., the window must already exist) or when renaming is appropriate. The description simply states what the tool does without any exclusions or situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., changing active window in tmux), error behavior, or required permissions. It adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's purpose.
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 description is extremely concise and well-structured: a single action sentence followed by a clearly labeled Args section. Every word earns its place, and the format is front-loaded for quick understanding.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, and it doesn't clarify whether the target must already exist or how errors are handled. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The schema has no description for the 'target' parameter (coverage 0%), but the description compensates by explaining 'Tmux target (e.g. "session:window")', providing a concrete format example that adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Navigate/switch to a specific tmux window', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_select_pane and tmux_create_window by focusing on selecting an existing window.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be preferable, providing only the core action and target format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the operation and arguments, omitting any side effects (e.g., behavior on nonexistent sessions, reversibility, errors), which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
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 description is exceptionally concise, with a one-sentence purpose and a clear argument list. No extraneous words or redundant content.
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?
For a simple rename operation, the description covers the purpose and both arguments. The presence of an output schema makes return-value details unnecessary, but missing context about error handling or prerequisites prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description adds meaningful detail to both parameters: old_name is defined as 'Current session name or ID' and new_name as 'New name for the session.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could be richer with constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Rename a tmux session' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_rename_window and tmux_list_sessions by explicitly targeting session renaming.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tmux_create_session or tmux_rename_window. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter purposes, but does not explain what happens if the session is invalid, whether the new window becomes active, how the command is executed, or any side effects/reversibility. This is a notable gap for a mutating tool.
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 description is three sentences plus an Args list, zero waste. It leads with the core purpose and then lists parameters in a structured format. No redundant content.
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?
The description covers the basic operation and all parameters, but omits edge-case behavior and error handling. Since there is no annotation context or output schema description, an agent may be uncertain about failure modes or post-conditions. However, for a simple tool with one required parameter, this is a moderate gap, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description offers meaningful definitions for all three parameters: 'Target session name or ID' for session, 'Optional name for the new window' for name, and 'Optional command to run in the new window' for command. Since the schema itself contains no parameter descriptions, these explanations add semantic value and clarify the optional nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new window in an existing tmux session', which is a specific verb and resource with context. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_create_session (session-level creation) and tmux_split_window (panel splitting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in an existing tmux session' implies that this tool is for adding windows to already-created sessions, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or equivalent tools. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden. 'Kill' implies destructiveness, but the description does not disclose side effects such as cascading termination of child panes/windows, irreversibility, or what happens if the target does not exist. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
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 description is brief and front-loaded, with clear bullet-style argument explanations. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The description is minimally viable for a simple kill operation, covering the essential parameters. However, it omits safety-critical context like cascading effects, target format expectations, and error behavior, which would make it more complete for a destructive tool.
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 has no descriptions, so the description compensates well by explaining 'target' as the tmux target and enumerating 'type' as session, window, or pane. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it could elaborate on the target syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Kill') and the resource ('tmux session, window, or pane'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_list_*, tmux_select_*, and tmux_create_*. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: use when you want to terminate a tmux entity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., graceful close vs. kill), and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the output (IDs, dimensions, status) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects. The verb 'list' implies non-mutating, but it is not explicitly stated.
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 description is exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or fluff content.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, an output schema present), the description is largely complete. It covers the main use case and parameter formatting. However, the lack of guidance on alternatives and behavioral safeguards slightly reduces completeness, but not enough to lower it further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the type and default for the target parameter, but the description adds meaningful detail with examples ('mysession', 'mysession:0') and behavior when omitted. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to list tmux panes with specific attributes (IDs, dimensions, status). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and tmux_list_windows.
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the optional target parameter and default behavior (listing all panes). No mention of when to prefer this over reading a specific pane or listing windows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target format, without explaining side effects (e.g., changing the active pane), prerequisites, or error behavior for invalid targets. The mutation-like nature of 'select/focus' is implied but not elaborated.
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 description is a single sentence plus a short Args section, with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the examples are efficient. Every element earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the target format but omits context about prerequisites (e.g., existing session/window), failure behavior, or the effect on the tmux session. While not severely lacking, it leaves gaps that could affect correct usage.
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?
The input schema provides no description for 'target' (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'Pane target' and giving concrete examples ('session:window.pane', '%3'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool selects/focuses a specific tmux pane, which is a precise action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_select_window by explicitly focusing on panes, and the target examples reinforce specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when one needs to focus a pane, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like tmux_select_window or tmux_list_panes. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so usage is only implicitly indicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey the tool's behavior. It states it lists sessions with specific fields, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention safety or side effects. The description adds some value by naming the output fields but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and avoids any waste or redundancy. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists and the fields returned. It lacks usage guidance and edge-case notes (e.g., tmux not running), but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on output behavior, which is acceptable for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('tmux sessions'), and specifies the exact data returned (names, IDs, window count, status). This differentiates it from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes and tmux_list_windows, which target different scopes.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_list_panes or tmux_list_windows. It implies usage by describing the output, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read/capture', confirming a read-only operation, and adds behavioral details about line_count (whole visible pane if omitted) and start_line (negative for history). This provides useful context beyond the schema.
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 description is compact and well-structured with an Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—and the parameter explanations are concise yet informative.
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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers parameter semantics and key behavioral details, making it largely complete for a read tool. It falls short only in not distinguishing from the sibling read tool tmux_read_cc_pane.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for the parameters, so the description fully compensates. It explains target with an example, line_count with default behavior, and start_line with a negative-value explanation, making each parameter's semantics clear.
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 'Read/capture content from a tmux pane' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating its function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tmux_read_cc_pane, but the name and generic wording make the primary purpose clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_read_cc_pane or tmux_send_keys. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists connections and provides status and idle time, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe any side effects or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing remote connection). This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple list operation.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names what is listed (active SSH connections) and the returned fields (status, idle time). It could be more explicit about the scope of 'active' or any prerequisites, but overall it is complete for a straightforward listing tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter details to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's behavior without needing parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active SSH connections'), and notes the included details (status and idle time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and remote_bash_execute, which target different resources or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to see active SSH connections and their status/idle time. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as tmux_list_sessions or remote_bash_execute, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavior. It explains the target format, special key names, and the literal flag, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the target pane doesn't exist) or any prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.
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 description is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clearly organized Args section. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers all parameters. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. However, it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it (e.g., for interacting with a pane's input) or about the partial target behavior. This is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It provides examples for target ('session:window.pane'), lists special key names for keys, and explains the literal flag. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Send keys or commands to a tmux pane.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tmux_read_pane or tmux_select_window. The tool's function is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (sending input to a tmux pane) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions target and keys, which informs usage, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately states the action but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., terminating running processes, irreversibility). Basic transparency is present, but richer behavioral context is missing.
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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear args list. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers parameter semantics and the key condition, though it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if no connections exist when using all).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and the conditional requirement of connection_id. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/default info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Disconnect an SSH connection or all connections.' It uses a specific verb 'disconnect' and names the resource 'SSH connection,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux operations and remote_bash_connect/execute/list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for both parameters, explaining when connection_id is needed ('Required if all is false') and what 'all' does. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's role is unambiguous among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal important behavior: the override semantics between width/height and direction/amount, and the meaning of amount in cells. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., minimum pane size, invalid target) or side effects on the pane layout. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 description is compact, organized with an Args section, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff or repetition. The structure is easily scannable for an agent.
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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core semantics needed to use it correctly. It explains both relative and absolute resizing and parameter precedence. It stops short of discussing edge cases or return values, but those are less critical given the schema and the tool's straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides bare parameter names and types with zero descriptive coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: target format, direction values, amount default/units, and width/height as absolute column/row values with override behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Resize a tmux pane', a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes or tmux_select_pane. It goes beyond a mere label by detailing the two resize modes (relative and absolute), making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use direction+amount for relative resize, or width/height for absolute resize.' It also clarifies the default amount and that width/height override the relative parameters. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the tmux tool family is distinct enough that this guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain split orientation default and size semantics, but it does not mention side effects like whether the new pane becomes active, what happens to the current pane, or error conditions. This is a mutation tool, and the description leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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 description is one clear sentence followed by a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a simple, scannable format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without fluff.
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?
The description adequately covers the key parameters and usage context for a split-pane tool. An output schema exists (though not shown) which likely covers return values. Minor gaps remain regarding side effects and when to prefer splitting over creating a new window, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is clearly explained: target format examples, horizontal meaning and default, size formats (percentage or line/column count), and command as optional. This goes beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Split') with a clear resource ('window/pane') and outcome ('create a new pane'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_create_window or tmux_send_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to split an existing pane), and explains key options like horizontal vs vertical and size. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: persistent shell state, auth preferences (prefer key-based auth), and default connection_id format. It lacks details on failure behavior but adds significant context beyond basic connect semantics.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a persistence note, and a parameter list. The parameter list is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, though it adds length.
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?
For a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, persistence, and all parameter semantics. Output schema exists, so lack of return value description is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides per-parameter explanations for all 7 parameters, which the schema lacks (0% description coverage). This fully compensates for the schema's sparse parameter documentation, adding meaning such as defaults and auth preferences.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it connects to a remote host via SSH with a persistent shell session, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions that shell state persists across subsequent remote_bash_execute calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remote_bash_execute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that shell state persists across subsequent remote_bash_execute calls, implying this is the prerequisite for executing remote commands. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternative connection methods, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavior: shell state persists across calls, connection_id defaults to the most recent, and timeout has a default. However, it omits potential dangers of executing arbitrary commands (e.g., destructiveness) and does not describe output/error handling, which limits transparency.
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 description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note about state persistence, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a command execution tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, shell state, parameter defaults, and the requirement of an established connection. Given the output schema handles return values, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fully explains each one: command (shell command), connection_id (which connection, optional, defaults to recent), and timeout (max seconds, default 120). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a command on a remote host via an established SSH connection.' This uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (remote host), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_bash_connect or tmux_send_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool requires an existing SSH connection ('via an established SSH connection') and notes the persistence of shell state for the same connection_id, which signals usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only list operation with optional filtering, but does not state side effects, output format nuances (though an output schema exists), or error behavior. It is non-misleading, and the list verb implies safety, but additional context would improve transparency.
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 description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains the optional filter, and the Args section is clear and minimal. No wasteful sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage and behavior. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity and the structured schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter 'session' — its meaning (name or ID) and effect (filter by session, or list all if omitted). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema type string|null.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'List all tmux windows' with an optional filter, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tmux windows'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes and tmux_list_sessions by naming the resource directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (list windows, optionally for a specific session) and explains the behavior when the optional filter is omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tmux_list_panes, though the resource name makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the polling loop, auto-approval by sending '1', and the return of captured content. It also notes the tool can wait and monitor, which is a behavioral trait beyond simple reads. However, it does not mention potential side effects like modifying pane state or error/timeout behavior in detail, though timeout is a parameter.
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 description is well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted list of behavior in the loop, and an Args section. It is concise yet complete, with every sentence contributing valuable information. No redundancy or fluff.
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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return content), the description covers the key aspects: parameters, loop behavior, and return condition. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case details, but the main usage is adequately explained for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter meaning, defaults, and example format for target. This fully compensates for the schema gap, adding crucial semantics for effective tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Monitor a tmux pane running Claude Code, auto-waiting and auto-approving.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_read_pane (simple read) and tmux_send_keys (send keys). It also describes the core loop and return condition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (against a tmux pane running Claude Code) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies this tool is for interactive monitoring/approval scenarios, which is clear enough for an agent but lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tmux-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WENLIXIAO-CS/tmux-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WENLIXIAO-CS/tmux-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tmux-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WENLIXIAO-CS/tmux-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WENLIXIAO-CS/tmux-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/WENLIXIAO-CS/tmux-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server