cmdxray
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| explain_commandA | Explain any shell command offline: a plain-English, token-by-token breakdown of the program, its flags and operands — including pipes, redirects, subshells and common inline languages (sed/awk/jq) — plus a risk assessment. Use it to understand what a command line does before running or recommending it. |
| check_command_safetyA | Safety-check a shell command BEFORE executing it. Returns a risk verdict (danger / caution / none) and plain-English warnings for destructive patterns: rm -rf /, curl | sudo bash, dd/mkfs/shred/wipefs to a disk device, chmod -R 777 /, git push --force, truncating /etc/passwd, fork bombs, kill -9 -1, find / -delete, and more. Ideal as a guard an AI agent calls before running shell commands. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The tools have distinct primary purposes — safety checking versus explanation — but explain_command also includes a risk assessment, creating some overlap with check_command_safety. Agents seeking only a risk verdict might be uncertain which tool to use, though the descriptions clarify the intended differences.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: check_command_safety and explain_command. The naming is consistent and clearly indicates each tool's action and target.
Two tools is on the thin side, but the server's scope is narrowly focused on shell command analysis, so the count is acceptable if not insufficient. It feels slightly sparse but not unreasonable for the stated purpose.
The domain appears to be shell command analysis, and the two tools cover safety checking and explanation, which are the core needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no syntax validation or comparison tool, but agents can accomplish the primary workflows without dead ends.