Riza MCP Server

execute_code

Execute TypeScript or Python code in a secure, isolated interpreter. Submit your script and capture stdout/stderr output to get results for LLM-driven tasks.

Instructions

Execute arbitrary Typescript or Python code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "execute_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No	The code you are writing. This will be executed as a script. Write any output to stdout or stderr.
`language`	No	The language of the code you are writing. This must be either 'TYPESCRIPT' or 'PYTHON'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It hints at unrestricted behavior via 'arbitrary' but omits environment constraints, side effects, timeouts, error handling, or privileges. The destructive/unsafe nature of arbitrary code execution is implied but not explained.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with zero waste. It is efficiently worded, though slightly sparse in behavioral depth.

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?

For a tool that executes arbitrary user-supplied code, the absence of safety context, environment description, and usage boundaries leaves a meaningful gap. The minimal description is not enough to safely and correctly deploy the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers the code and language parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Typescript or Python' adds no detail beyond the language parameter's permitted values.

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 a specific verb ('Execute'), resource ('arbitrary...code'), and languages ('Typescript or Python'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling execute_tool which implies running a predefined tool. The word 'arbitrary' conveys a general-purpose code runner.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus execute_tool or other siblings. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving an agent to infer when arbitrary code execution is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server