Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'security restrictions' but doesn't specify what those restrictions are (allowed commands, permission levels, sandboxing, etc.). It doesn't describe error handling beyond the 'stopOnError' parameter, nor does it explain what 'auto-commit' means in this context. For a tool that executes potentially dangerous operations, this is a significant behavioral transparency gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information about sequential execution and security restrictions.

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 tool that executes potentially dangerous command sequences with security implications, the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to provide safety context, and there's no output schema to indicate what results to expect. The description doesn't explain what 'security restrictions' entail, what happens when commands fail, or how results are returned. Given the complexity and risk profile, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'security restrictions' which might relate to the 'commands' parameter, but doesn't elaborate. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: executing multiple commands in sequence with security restrictions. It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('commands'), but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling 'secure_run_command' tool, which appears to be a single-command version. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'run_command', 'secure_run_command', and various Docker/git tools, there's no indication of when this sequential execution with security restrictions is preferred over other execution methods. The description mentions 'security restrictions' but doesn't explain what those are or when they apply.

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