Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LocalREPL MCP Server

LocalREPL MCP Server

by angrysky56
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

spawn_shell

Launch long-running processes like watchers and servers, then poll output, send input, or kill via returned proc_id.

Instructions

Spawn a long-running process. Returns a proc_id for follow-up calls.

    Use this for watchers (watchexec, tail -f), servers, REPLs, or any
    command you want to poll output from over time. For one-shot
    commands use run_shell instead — it's simpler and auto-logs.

    Returns proc_id which is passed to tail_shell_output, send_to_shell,
    kill_shell, and wait_shell.

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": {
      "command": "<command>",
      "repl_id": "<repl_id>"
    },
    "name": "spawn_shell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
commandYes
repl_idYes
env_extraNo
use_shellNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as spawning a long-running process, returning a proc_id for polling, and lists related tools. Implies non-blocking behavior but could explicitly state that it does not wait for completion.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear bullet-like formatting for examples. No wasted words.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers return value and lifecycle with other tools. Missing details on failure modes or resource usage, but adequate for its complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of any parameters (command, cwd, repl_id, env_extra, use_shell). Without parameter semantics, agents cannot determine correct usage.

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 spawns a long-running process and returns a proc_id. It distinguishes from run_shell by specifying it's for watchers, servers, REPLs, and commands to poll over time.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (watchers, servers, REPLs) and when not to (one-shot commands, use run_shell instead). Also mentions that proc_id is used by other tools, providing clear usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools