Un servidor MCP (Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo) para ejecutar comandos de shell en múltiples plataformas (Windows, macOS, Linux). Este servidor proporciona una forma segura de ejecutar comandos de shell con mecanismos integrados de lista blanca y aprobación.
Ejecutar comandos de shell a través de MCP en Windows, macOS y Linux
Detección automática de plataforma y selección de shell
Soporte para múltiples shells:
Ventanas : cmd.exe, PowerShell
macOS : zsh, bash, sh
Linux : bash, sh, zsh
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
Listas blancas de comandos específicos de la plataforma
Flujo de trabajo de aprobación sin bloqueo para comandos potencialmente peligrosos
Sistema de registro integral con registros basados en archivos
Herramientas integrales de gestión de comandos
Herramienta de información de plataforma para diagnóstico
Related MCP server: Mac Shell MCP Server
Para instalar Super Shell MCP Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @cfdude/super-shell-mcp --client claude# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/cfdude/super-shell-mcp.git
cd super-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 Super Shell:
La forma más sencilla de usar Super Shell MCP es con NPX, que instala y ejecuta automáticamente el paquete desde npm sin necesidad de configuración manual. El paquete está disponible en NPM en https://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcp .
"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Si prefiere utilizar una instalación local, 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 ):
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Opcionalmente, puede especificar un shell personalizado agregando un parámetro de shell:
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js",
"--shell=/usr/bin/bash"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Ejemplo de Windows 11
"super-shell": {
"command": "C:\\Program Files\\nodejs\\node.exe",
"args": [
"C:\\Program Files\\nodejs\\node_modules\\npm\\bin\\npx-cli.js",
"-y",
"super-shell-mcp",
"C:\\Users\\username"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Agregue lo siguiente a su archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop (ubicado en ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json ):
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Para los usuarios de Windows, el archivo de configuración normalmente se encuentra en %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json .
Shell predeterminado: cmd.exe (o PowerShell si está disponible)
Rutas de configuración:
Código Roo: %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json
Escritorio de Claude: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Ejemplos de rutas de shell:
cmd.exe: C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
PowerShell: C:\\Windows\\System32\\WindowsPowerShell\\v1.0\\powershell.exe
Núcleo de PowerShell: C:\\Program Files\\PowerShell\\7\\pwsh.exe
Shell predeterminado: /bin/zsh
Rutas de configuración:
Código Roo: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Escritorio de Claude: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Ejemplos de rutas de shell:
zsh: /bin/zsh
bash: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
Shell predeterminado: /bin/bash (o variable de entorno $SHELL)
Rutas de configuración:
Código Roo: ~/.config/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Escritorio de Claude: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Ejemplos de rutas de shell:
bash: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
zsh: /usr/bin/zsh
Opcionalmente, puede especificar un shell personalizado:
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js",
"--shell=C:\\Windows\\System32\\WindowsPowerShell\\v1.0\\powershell.exe"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Reemplace /path/to/super-shell-mcp con la ruta real donde clonó el repositorio.
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 Super 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:
get_platform_infoObtenga información sobre la plataforma y shell actuales.
{}execute_commandEjecutar un comando de shell en la plataforma actual.
{
"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"
}El servidor incluye listas blancas de comandos específicas de la plataforma que se seleccionan automáticamente en función de la plataforma detectada.
echo - Imprimir texto en la salida estándar
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
dir - Lista el contenido del directorio
type - Mostrar el contenido de un archivo de texto
findstr - Busca cadenas en archivos
where - Localizar programas
whoami - Mostrar el usuario actual
hostname - Nombre de la computadora para mostrar
ver - Mostrar la versión del sistema operativo
copy - Copiar archivos
move - Mover archivos
mkdir - Crear directorios
rmdir - Eliminar directorios
rename - Cambiar el nombre de los archivos
attrib - Cambiar atributos de archivo
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
del - Eliminar archivos
erase - Eliminar archivos
format - Formatear un disco
runas - Ejecutar un programa como otro usuario
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"
}Super Shell MCP está disponible como un paquete npm en https://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcp .
El uso del método NPX (como se muestra en la Opción 1 de la sección Configuración) ofrece varias ventajas:
Sin configuración manual : no es necesario clonar el repositorio, instalar dependencias ni compilar el proyecto
Actualizaciones automáticas : siempre utiliza la última versión publicada
Compatibilidad entre plataformas : funciona de la misma manera en Windows, macOS y Linux.
Configuración simplificada : configuración más corta sin rutas absolutas
Mantenimiento reducido : no hay archivos locales que administrar ni actualizar
Si prefieres utilizar la última versión de desarrollo directamente desde GitHub:
"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"github:cfdude/super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [], // For Roo Code
"disabled": false
}Si desea publicar su propia versión modificada en npm:
Actualice el package.json con sus datos
Asegúrese de que el campo "bin" esté configurado correctamente:
"bin": {
"super-shell-mcp": "./build/index.js"
}Publicar en npm:
npm publishPara una integración óptima con los clientes MCP que utilizan NPX, este proyecto sigue estas prácticas recomendadas:
Punto de entrada ejecutable : el archivo principal incluye una línea shebang ( #!/usr/bin/env node ) y se hace ejecutable durante la compilación.
Configuración del paquete :
"type": "module" - Garantiza que se utilicen los módulos ES
Campo "bin" : asigna el nombre del comando al punto de entrada
Campo "files" : especifica qué archivos incluir al publicar
Script "prepare" : garantiza que la compilación se realice durante la instalación
Configuración de TypeScript :
"module": "NodeNext" - Compatibilidad adecuada con módulos ES
"moduleResolution": "NodeNext" - Consistente con los módulos ES
Instalación y ejecución automática :
La configuración del cliente MCP utiliza npx -y para instalar y ejecutar automáticamente el paquete
Ninguna ventana de terminal está bloqueada ya que el proceso se ejecuta en segundo plano
Proceso de publicación :
# Update version in package.json
npm version patch # or minor/major as appropriate
# Build and publish
npm publishEstas prácticas garantizan que el cliente MCP pueda iniciar automáticamente el servidor MCP sin necesidad de una ventana de terminal independiente, lo que mejora la experiencia del usuario y la eficiencia operativa.
Política de ejecución de scripts de PowerShell
Problema : PowerShell puede bloquear la ejecución del script con el error "La ejecución de scripts está deshabilitada en este sistema".
Solución : ejecute PowerShell como administrador y ejecute Set-ExecutionPolicy RemoteSigned o utilice el parámetro -ExecutionPolicy Bypass al configurar el shell.
Separadores de ruta
Problema : Windows usa barras invertidas ( \ ) en las rutas, que deben escaparse en JSON
Solución : utilice barras invertidas dobles ( \\ ) en los archivos de configuración JSON, por ejemplo, C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
Comando no encontrado
Problema : Windows no tiene comandos Unix como ls , grep , etc.
Solución : utilice equivalentes de Windows ( dir en lugar de ls , findstr en lugar de grep )
Permisos de Shell
Problema : Permiso denegado al ejecutar comandos
Solución : asegúrese de que el shell tenga los permisos adecuados con chmod +x /path/to/shell
Variables de entorno
Problema : Las variables de entorno no están disponibles en el servidor MCP
Solución : establezca variables de entorno en el archivo de perfil del shell ( .zshrc , .bashrc , etc.)
Problemas de detección de shell
Problema : el servidor no detecta el shell correcto
Solución : especifique explícitamente la ruta del shell en la configuración
Tiempo de espera de ejecución del comando
Problema : los comandos tardan demasiado y se agota el tiempo de espera
Solución : Aumente el valor de tiempo de espera en el constructor del servicio de comandos
El servidor incluye un sistema de registro integral que escribe registros en un archivo para facilitar la depuración y la supervisión:
Ubicación del archivo de registro
Predeterminado: logs/super-shell-mcp.log en el directorio del servidor
El directorio de registros se crea automáticamente y Git lo rastrea (con un archivo .gitkeep)
Los archivos de registro en sí se excluyen de Git a través de .gitignore
Contiene información detallada sobre las operaciones del servidor, la ejecución de comandos y el flujo de trabajo de aprobación.
Niveles de registro
INFO : Información operativa general
DEBUG : Información de depuración detallada
ERROR : Condiciones de error y excepciones
Visualización de registros
Utilice los comandos de visualización de archivos estándar para comprobar los registros:
# View the entire log
cat logs/super-shell-mcp.log
# Follow log updates in real-time
tail -f logs/super-shell-mcp.logContenido del registro
Inicio y configuración del servidor
Solicitudes y resultados de ejecución de comandos
Eventos de flujo de trabajo de aprobación (pendiente, aprobado, denegado)
Condiciones de error e información de solución de problemas
Gestión de listas blancas
Problema : Es necesario agregar comandos personalizados a la lista blanca
Solución : utilice la herramienta add_to_whitelist para agregar comandos específicos para su entorno
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 the current platform
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details such as security implications, permission requirements, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes shell commands, which can have high-risk behaviors.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, 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 executing shell commands (potentially high-risk with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address security, permissions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'command' and 'args'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 resource ('a shell command on the current platform'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'approve_command' or 'deny_command', which appear to be related to command management but have different functions.
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. Given siblings like 'approve_command' and 'deny_command', it's unclear if 'execute_command' requires approval, operates independently, or has specific prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage context.
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 information about the current platform and shell
| 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 the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., OS version, shell type, environment details), whether it requires permissions, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get information'), making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 for a tool that retrieves system information. It doesn't explain what specific data is returned (e.g., platform details, shell version) or the format of the output, which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. This leaves too much ambiguity for practical 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for tools with no 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current platform and shell'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'execute_command' or 'get_pending_commands'), which focus on command execution and management rather than platform metadata.
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, context (e.g., use for system diagnostics or compatibility checks), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the 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_platform_infoget_whitelistremove_from_whitelistupdate_security_levelScored across 9 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, add_to_whitelist and remove_from_whitelist handle whitelist modifications, while approve_command and deny_command manage pending commands, and execute_command performs command execution. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as add_to_whitelist, get_pending_commands, and update_security_level. This predictability aids agent understanding and navigation without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a shell security management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow, from command execution and approval to whitelist and platform management, avoiding bloat or thin coverage.
The tool set provides complete coverage for shell command security management, including CRUD operations for the whitelist (add, get, remove, update), a full lifecycle for pending commands (get, approve, deny), and core utilities like execute_command and get_platform_info. No obvious gaps exist for the domain.
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
Secure and manage MCP servers through the Speakeasy AI Control Plane from your agent.
The MCP server for Azure DevOps, bringing the power of Azure DevOps directly to your agents.
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).
