mcp-node-zig

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run Command (no shell)

exec

Destructive

Run a program on a remote machine from an argv array without shell interpretation; configure working directory and timeout.

Instructions

Run argv to exit, no shell: metacharacters are data. Shell syntax: exec_shell. Long-running or interactive: exec_start. timeout in seconds, default 120, clamped to [1, 1800]. Invalid UTF-8 in stdout/stderr becomes U+FFFD.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Child working directory; omit to inherit.
`argv`	Yes	Program and arguments, e.g. ["df", "-h", "/"]. Passed verbatim.
`timeout`	No	Kill after this many seconds (1..1800, default 120).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`stderr`	No
`stdout`	No
`timeout`	No
`exit_code`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`duration_us`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with non-obvious behavior: no shell interpretation (metacharacters are data), default timeout 120 clamped to [1,1800], and lossy UTF-8 decoding to U+FFFD. It does not describe output shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Telegraphic but zero-waste: the core contract is front-loaded in the first clause, then alternatives, then timeout semantics, then an edge case. Every sentence carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers invocation semantics, alternatives, timeout behavior, and encoding edge cases. Only blocking/streaming behavior is left implicit, a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating that argv is passed verbatim with metacharacters as data and reiterating the timeout default/clamp, which clarifies the semantic contract of the required parameter.

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?

States the specific operation (run argv to exit, no shell) and its defining property (metacharacters are data), which instantly separates it from exec_shell. The sibling routing names make the distinction explicit rather than inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-not and alternatives: shell syntax goes to exec_shell, long-running or interactive goes to exec_start. Both branches an agent could misroute are closed off.

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

Deploy Server