Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo que proporciona acceso programático a la terminal de Windows. Este servidor permite que los modelos de IA interactúen con la interfaz de línea de comandos de Windows mediante un conjunto de herramientas estandarizadas.
Escribir en la terminal : ejecuta comandos o escribe texto en la terminal de Windows
Leer salida de terminal : recupera la salida de comandos ejecutados previamente
Enviar caracteres de control : envía señales de control (por ejemplo, Ctrl+C) a la terminal
Windows-Native : creado específicamente para la interacción de la línea de comandos de Windows
Related MCP server: iTerm MCP
Clonar el repositorio :
git clone https://github.com/capecoma/winterm-mcp.git
cd winterm-mcpInstalar dependencias :
npm installConstruir el proyecto :
npm run buildConfigurar Claude Desktop :
Agregue la configuración del servidor a %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json :
{
"mcpServers": {
"github.com/capecoma/winterm-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/build/index.js"],
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Nota: Reemplace "path/to/build/index.js" con la ruta real a su archivo index.js creado.
Escribe texto o comandos en la terminal.
{
"command": "echo Hello, World!"
}Lee la cantidad especificada de líneas desde la salida del terminal.
{
"linesOfOutput": 5
}Envía un carácter de control a la terminal (por ejemplo, Ctrl+C).
{
"letter": "C"
}Para desarrollo con reconstrucción automática:
npm run devLicencia MIT: consulte el archivo LICENSE .
Read the output from the terminal
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linesOfOutput | Yes | Number of lines of output to read |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Read') without details on permissions, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with terminal output, as it omits critical context like whether it reads recent or historical output, or if it requires specific terminal states.
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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like what 'output' entails, potential errors, or return values. For a tool with a parameter and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'linesOfOutput' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining typical values or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 states the action ('Read') and target ('output from the terminal'), which clarifies the tool's basic function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'output' means (e.g., recent output, buffered content) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_to_terminal' or 'send_control_character', leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., terminal must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'write_to_terminal' for input operations, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a control character to the terminal
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| letter | Yes | The letter corresponding to the control character (e.g., "C" for Ctrl+C) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether it interrupts execution, sends signals, or modifies terminal state), permissions needed, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after sending the character, possible outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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%, with the parameter 'letter' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples beyond 'C' or constraints on valid letters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Send') and target ('control character to the terminal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_terminal_output' (reading) and 'write_to_terminal' (writing text), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description itself.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention scenarios like interrupting processes (Ctrl+C), signaling end-of-file (Ctrl+D), or other terminal control contexts, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Write text or commands to the terminal
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The text or command to write to the terminal |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('write') but doesn't clarify if this executes commands, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with the terminal state. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves system interaction.
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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether commands are executed, error handling, or return values, which are critical for a terminal interaction tool. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is insufficient.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'command' as 'The text or command to write to the terminal'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but the schema provides sufficient baseline information.
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 verb ('write') and resource ('to the terminal'), specifying the action and target. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_control_character' which might also involve terminal interaction, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use each.
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 like 'send_control_character' or 'read_terminal_output'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0read_terminal_outputsend_control_characterwrite_to_terminalScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: reading output, sending control characters, and writing text/commands are three separate terminal operations. An agent can easily tell them apart based on their specific functions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (read_terminal_output, send_control_character, write_to_terminal) with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable across the set.
Three tools is slightly thin but reasonable for a terminal-focused server, covering core input/output and control operations. It feels minimal but not incomplete, as each tool earns its place for basic terminal interaction.
The tools cover the essential terminal operations: reading, writing, and control. A minor gap might be the lack of a tool for managing terminal sessions or configuration, but for basic interaction, the surface is largely complete without dead ends.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
The Telnyx MCP server is an official implementation of the Model Context Protocol that enables AI clients (like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and OpenAI Agents) to interact with Telnyx's telephony, messaging, and AI assistant APIs. It provides comprehensive capabilities including making and managing phone calls, sending SMS/MMS messages, purchasing and configuring phone numbers, creating AI assistants with custom instructions, managing cloud storage buckets, scraping and embedding website content, and handling integration secrets. The server exists as both a local implementation and a remotely hosted version, allowing developers to integrate real-world communication infrastructure directly into AI applications.
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
