Skip to main content
Glama
capsulerun

Capsule Bash Server

Official
by capsulerun

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a unique, clear purpose: reset reverts state, run executes commands, and sessions lists active sessions. No ambiguity or overlap exists.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names are single, imperative verbs (reset, run, sessions) following a consistent, simple pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a bash sandbox server, covering essential operations without superfluous or missing tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers core actions (run, reset, list sessions) but lacks explicit session creation; likely sessions are created implicitly, leaving a minor gap.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the sandboxed environment but fails to describe side effects (e.g., file system changes, output handling, error behavior) or any permissions needed.

    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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loades key information.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks information about return values (e.g., stdout/stderr) and potential side effects, which could help an agent understand the tool's full behavior.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear explanations for both parameters (command and session_id). The tool description adds no extra parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter semantics.

    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 'Execute a Bash command in the sandboxed environment' clearly states the action (execute) and the resource (Bash command in sandbox). It distinguishes from siblings 'reset' and 'sessions' by implying this tool is for running commands, not managing sessions.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 like 'reset' or 'sessions'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Lacking annotations, the description states the tool lists active sessions, conveying a non-destructive, read-only behavior. But it omits details like whether state includes sub-attributes or if sessions are global.

    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?

    A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently captures the core functionality.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at return structure or example use. It covers the basic purpose but lacks actionable output details.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    No parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters.

    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?

    Describes a specific action (list) and resource (active session IDs and state). Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'reset' and 'run' which imply modification actions.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies a read-only listing use case, and with siblings being action-oriented, the context is clear. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that the tool resets filesystem and shell state to initial values, which is specific and transparent about the behavior. No side effects or additional information is provided, but the action is straightforward.

    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 consists of two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information: the action and scope in the first sentence, usage context in the second. No wasted words.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides all necessary information: what it does, what it affects, and when to use it. No gaps remain.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter 'session_id'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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 the verb 'reset' and the resource 'session's filesystem and shell state', specifying what is reset (cwd, env vars) and distinguishing from siblings 'run' and 'sessions' which have different purposes.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explicitly says 'useful to start fresh without creating a new session', giving a clear usage scenario and implying an alternative (creating a new session). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

bash MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bash MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/capsulerun/bash'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server