Un servidor MCP (Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo) para ejecutar comandos de terminal de macOS con shell ZSH. Este servidor proporciona una forma segura de ejecutar comandos de shell con mecanismos integrados de lista blanca y aprobación.
Ejecutar comandos de terminal de macOS a través de MCP
Lista blanca de comandos con niveles de seguridad:
Seguro : Comandos que se pueden ejecutar sin aprobación
Requiere aprobación : comandos que necesitan aprobación explícita antes de su ejecución
Prohibido : Comandos que están bloqueados explícitamente
Lista blanca preconfigurada con comandos seguros comunes
Flujo de trabajo de aprobación para comandos potencialmente peligrosos
Herramientas integrales de gestión de comandos
Related MCP server: Terminal MCP Server
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/cfdude/mac-shell-mcp.git
cd mac-shell-mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run buildnpm startO directamente:
node build/index.jsTanto Roo Code como Claude Desktop utilizan un formato de configuración similar para los servidores MCP. A continuación, se explica cómo configurar el servidor MCP de Mac Shell:
Agregue lo siguiente a su archivo de configuración de Roo Code MCP (ubicado en ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json ):
"mac-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/mac-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Agregue lo siguiente a su archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop (ubicado en ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json ):
"mac-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/mac-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Reemplace /path/to/mac-shell-mcp con la ruta real donde clonó el repositorio.
Para una configuración más conveniente que no requiera mantener abierta una ventana de terminal, puede publicar el paquete en npm y usarlo con npx:
Actualice el package.json con sus datos
Publicar en npm:
npm publish"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Este enfoque permite que el servidor MCP sea iniciado automáticamente por el cliente MCP sin necesidad de una ventana de terminal independiente o intervención manual.
Nota :
Para Roo Code: Se recomienda configurar
alwaysAllowcon una matriz vacía[]por razones de seguridad, ya que solicitará aprobación antes de ejecutar cualquier comando. Si desea permitir comandos específicos sin solicitar aprobación, puede agregar sus nombres a la matriz, por ejemplo:"alwaysAllow": ["execute_command", "get_whitelist"].Para Claude Desktop: Se recomienda configurar
alwaysAllowcomofalsepor razones de seguridad. Claude Desktop utiliza un valor booleano en lugar de una matriz, dondefalsesignifica que todos los comandos requieren aprobación ytruesignifica que todos los comandos se permiten sin solicitud.Importante : El parámetro
alwaysAllowlo procesa el cliente MCP (Roo Code o Claude Desktop), no el propio servidor MCP de Mac Shell. El servidor funcionará correctamente con ambos formatos, ya que el cliente gestiona el proceso de aprobación antes de enviar las solicitudes al servidor.
El servidor expone las siguientes herramientas MCP:
execute_commandEjecutar un comando de shell en macOS.
{
"command": "ls",
"args": ["-la"]
}get_whitelistObtenga la lista de comandos incluidos en la lista blanca.
{}add_to_whitelistAñade un comando a la lista blanca.
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "safe",
"description": "Run Python 3 scripts"
}update_security_levelActualizar el nivel de seguridad de un comando incluido en la lista blanca.
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval"
}remove_from_whitelistEliminar un comando de la lista blanca.
{
"command": "python3"
}get_pending_commandsObtenga la lista de comandos pendientes de aprobación.
{}approve_commandAprobar un comando pendiente.
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here"
}deny_commandDenegar un comando pendiente.
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here",
"reason": "This command is potentially dangerous"
}ls - Listar el contenido del directorio
pwd - Imprimir directorio de trabajo
echo - Imprimir texto en la salida estándar
cat - Concatenar e imprimir archivos
grep - Buscar patrones en archivos
find - Buscar archivos en una jerarquía de directorios
cd - Cambiar directorio
head - Salida de la primera parte de los archivos
tail - Muestra la última parte de los archivos
wc - Imprimir recuentos de nuevas líneas, palabras y bytes
mv - Mover (renombrar) archivos
cp - Copiar archivos y directorios
mkdir - Crear directorios
touch - Cambiar las marcas de tiempo de los archivos o crear archivos vacíos
chmod - Cambiar los bits del modo de archivo
chown - Cambiar el propietario y el grupo del archivo
rm - Eliminar archivos o directorios
sudo - Ejecutar un comando como otro usuario
Todos los comandos se ejecutan con los permisos del usuario que ejecuta el servidor MCP
Los comandos que requieren aprobación se mantienen en una cola hasta que se aprueban explícitamente.
Los comandos prohibidos nunca se ejecutan
El servidor utiliza execFile de Node.js en lugar de exec para evitar la inyección de shell
Los argumentos se validan contra patrones permitidos cuando se especifican
Puedes ampliar la lista blanca con la herramienta add_to_whitelist . Por ejemplo:
{
"command": "npm",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval",
"description": "Node.js package manager"
}Para utilizar el servidor MCP de Mac Shell con npx de forma similar a otros servidores MCP como Brave Search, puedes publicarlo en npm o usarlo directamente desde GitHub.
Agregue lo siguiente a la configuración de su MCP:
"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"github:cfdude/mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"github:cfdude/mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Esto descargará y ejecutará automáticamente el servidor sin necesidad de un proceso manual de clonación y compilación.
Si desea publicar su propia versión en npm:
Actualice el package.json con sus datos
Agregue un campo "bin" a package.json:
"bin": {
"mac-shell-mcp": "./build/index.js"
}Publicar en npm:
npm publishLuego puedes usarlo en tu configuración de MCP:
"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}"mac-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mac-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Este servidor MCP cuenta con la licencia MIT. Esto significa que puede usar, modificar y distribuir el software libremente, sujeto a los términos y condiciones de la licencia MIT. Para más detalles, consulte el archivo de LICENCIA en el repositorio del proyecto.
Add a command to the whitelist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to whitelist | |
| securityLevel | Yes | Security level for the command | |
| description | No | Description of the command |
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 ('Add') but doesn't explain what happens upon invocation—e.g., whether it's a mutation, requires permissions, has side effects like notifications, or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies a security list.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 complexity of modifying a security whitelist, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for safe tool invocation in this context.
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 three parameters (command, securityLevel, description) with details like enum values for securityLevel. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Add') and resource ('command to the whitelist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_security_level' or 'remove_from_whitelist', which prevents a perfect score.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_security_level' or 'approve_command'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the command must be pending or already exist, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Approve a pending command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes | ID of the command to approve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Approve' implies a mutation that changes state, but the description doesn't clarify what happens after approval (e.g., does it trigger execution, log the action, or require additional steps?), potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations.
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. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
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, and the tool's likely role in a security/command workflow (inferred from sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome of approval, how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'execute_command'), or any system constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'commandId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'commandId' refers to a pending command, which is already inferred from the tool's purpose. This 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 ('approve') and the target resource ('a pending command'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'deny_command' beyond the opposite action, nor does it explain what 'approve' entails in this context versus simply executing or modifying the command.
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 'deny_command' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., that the command must be in a pending state) or contextual cues for selection, 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.
Deny a pending command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes | ID of the command to deny | |
| reason | No | Reason for denial |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('deny') but doesn't explain what 'deny' entails—whether it's reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what the outcome is, or if there are side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks context on what 'deny' means operationally, making it difficult to use correctly without additional information.
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, with clear documentation for both parameters ('commandId' and 'reason'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 ('deny') and the target ('a pending command'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_command' or explain what 'deny' means in this context beyond the basic action.
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 'approve_command' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending command ID) or context about what happens after denial. The agent must 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.
Execute a shell command on macOS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to execute | |
| args | No | Command arguments |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects: whether execution is immediate or requires approval, what permissions are needed, whether commands run with elevated privileges, what happens on failure, or what output format to expect. For a potentially dangerous shell execution tool, this is inadequate transparency.
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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place, 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 complexity of shell command execution (potentially destructive, security-sensitive) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address safety considerations, error handling, output format, or how this interacts with the security-focused sibling tools. For a tool that could modify system state, more contextual information is needed.
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 both parameters ('command' and 'args') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.
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 ('Execute') and target ('a shell command on macOS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on command execution rather than security management or querying. However, it doesn't specify whether this executes immediately or requires approval, which could be more precise.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_command' or 'deny_command'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, security implications, or whether this bypasses approval workflows. With siblings focused on security controls, this omission leaves significant ambiguity about appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the list of commands pending approval
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all pending commands or a filtered subset. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with no parameters, the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks context about what 'pending approval' means, how commands are structured, or what the return value looks like. For a tool in a security/command approval context, more completeness would be helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
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 ('Get') and resource ('list of commands pending approval'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'approve_command' or 'deny_command', but the verb 'Get' implies a read operation rather than an action on the commands themselves.
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 'get_whitelist' or 'execute_command'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for pending commands, or any 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.
Get the list of whitelisted commands
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the list of whitelisted commands') and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the return format (e.g., structure of the whitelist, data types) and behavioral traits. It meets the basic requirement for a simple read operation but doesn't provide enough information for confident use without additional context.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools where the schema already covers everything.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('list of whitelisted commands'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_pending_commands' or 'add_to_whitelist', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to infer basic distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or contrast with sibling tools like 'get_pending_commands' (which might retrieve unapproved commands) or 'add_to_whitelist' (which modifies the list). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a command from the whitelist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to remove from whitelist |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a removal action, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the command isn't in the whitelist. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 states the core function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., confirmation message, error responses), doesn't mention security implications, and provides no context about the whitelist system it operates within.
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 the single 'command' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('remove') and target resource ('a command from the whitelist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deny_command' or 'update_security_level' which might have overlapping security functions, preventing a perfect score.
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 like 'deny_command' or 'update_security_level'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., whether the command must already be whitelisted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update the security level of a whitelisted command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to update | |
| securityLevel | Yes | New security level for the command |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., if command isn't whitelisted), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a security-related mutation tool.
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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, making it easy to parse while conveying essential purpose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context: what 'security level' means operationally, how changes affect command execution, error handling, or response format. Given the security-sensitive nature and sibling tools, more completeness is needed.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'command' refers to a whitelisted one. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.
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 ('Update') and the target ('security level of a whitelisted command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'add_to_whitelist' or 'remove_from_whitelist', which also modify command permissions but in different ways.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the command must already be whitelisted), contrast with 'approve_command'/'deny_command' for pending requests, or explain when changing security levels is appropriate versus adding/removing from the whitelist.
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.
add_to_whitelistapprove_commanddeny_commandexecute_commandget_pending_commandsget_whitelistremove_from_whitelistupdate_security_levelScored across 8 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The tools cover separate aspects of command management: whitelist operations (add/remove/get), approval workflow (approve/deny/get_pending), execution (execute_command), and security configuration (update_security_level). There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, using clear action verbs like 'add_to', 'remove_from', 'get', 'execute', 'approve', 'deny', and 'update' paired with appropriate nouns.
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for its macOS shell security management purpose. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations for command whitelisting, approval workflows, execution, and security configuration without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the macOS shell security domain. It includes full CRUD operations for the whitelist (add, remove, get), comprehensive approval workflow management (approve, deny, get_pending), command execution, and security level updates, leaving no obvious gaps for agents to work with.
MCP server for your apps' tools and custom tools, plus hosted AI agents and approval-gated workflows
Remote MCP server exposing your Node Command fleet (files, shell, processes, browser) to AI hosts.
Termalin's hosted MCP server. Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP client runs commands, moves files over SFTP, queries databases and reads server metrics and monitoring alerts on your servers, keylessly through Termalin Connectors: no SSH key is handed over and no inbound port is opened. Per-host command policy and an audit log. Needs a termal.in Pro or Team account (new accounts start with a 14-day Pro trial).
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
