Run an executable on a saved or ad-hoc SSH/WinRM target with safely quoted arguments, optional working directory, environment variables, and timeout.
Run an executable with a safely quoted argument list on a saved or ad-hoc target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| env | No | ||
| args | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| program | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| connection | No | ||
| output_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, so the description is not responsible for the full safety profile. It adds useful context that arguments are safely quoted, but it does not explain execution side effects, output handling, permission requirements, or how saved versus ad-hoc targets behave.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, its compression sacrifices clarity around what 'target' means and how it maps to profile or connection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive remote execution tool with eight parameters, zero schema descriptions, and many similarly named siblings, the definition is too thin. It does not explain target selection, timeout behavior, output limits, environment handling, or when this tool should be used instead of related execution tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions the program, an argument list, and a target, but leaves cwd, env, timeout, output_limit, profile, and connection semantics unexplained, which is a significant gap for an 8-parameter execution tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: run an executable with a safely quoted argument list. It also clarifies the execution target as saved or ad-hoc, which separates it from purely script- or session-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from remote_execute or remote_run_script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'saved or ad-hoc target' gives some context, but an agent must infer whether to choose this over remote_execute, remote_run_script, remote_session_execute, or remote_command_group_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.