複数のプラットフォーム（Windows、macOS、Linux）でシェルコマンドを実行するためのMCP（Model Context Protocol）サーバー。このサーバーは、ホワイトリストと承認メカニズムを組み込んだ安全なシェルコマンド実行方法を提供します。
Windows、macOS、Linux で MCP を介してシェル コマンドを実行する
自動プラットフォーム検出とシェル選択
複数のシェルのサポート:
Windows : cmd.exe、PowerShell
macOS : zsh、bash、sh
Linux : bash、sh、zsh
セキュリティ レベルによるコマンドのホワイトリスト:
安全: 承認なしで実行できるコマンド
承認が必要: 実行前に明示的な承認が必要なコマンド
禁止: 明示的にブロックされているコマンド
プラットフォーム固有のコマンドホワイトリスト
潜在的に危険なコマンドに対する非ブロッキング承認ワークフロー
ファイルベースのログを備えた包括的なログシステム
包括的なコマンド管理ツール
診断用プラットフォーム情報ツール
Related MCP server: Mac Shell MCP Server
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の Super Shell MCP Server を自動的にインストールするには:
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 startまたは直接:
node build/index.jsRoo CodeとClaude Desktopはどちらも、MCPサーバーに同様の設定形式を使用しています。Super Shell MCPサーバーの設定方法は次のとおりです。
Super Shell MCPを使用する最も簡単な方法はNPXを使用することです。NPXを使用すると、npmからパッケージが自動的にインストールされ、実行されるため、手動での設定は不要です。パッケージはNPMのhttps://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcpから入手できます。
"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
}ローカル インストールを使用する場合は、Roo Code MCP 設定構成ファイル ( ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.jsonにあります) に次の内容を追加します。
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}オプションで、シェル パラメータを追加してカスタム シェルを指定することもできます。
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js",
"--shell=/usr/bin/bash"
],
"alwaysAllow": [],
"disabled": false
}Windows 11の例
"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
}Claude Desktop 構成ファイル ( ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonにあります) に次のコードを追加します。
"super-shell": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/super-shell-mcp/build/index.js"
],
"alwaysAllow": false,
"disabled": false
}Windows ユーザーの場合、構成ファイルは通常%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.jsonにあります。
デフォルトのシェル: cmd.exe (または PowerShell (使用可能な場合))
構成パス:
Roo コード: %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json
クロード デスクトップ: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
シェルパスの例:
cmd.exe: C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
PowerShell: C:\\Windows\\System32\\WindowsPowerShell\\v1.0\\powershell.exe
PowerShell コア: C:\\Program Files\\PowerShell\\7\\pwsh.exe
デフォルトのシェル: /bin/zsh
構成パス:
Roo コード: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Claude デスクトップ: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
シェルパスの例:
zsh: /bin/zsh
バッシュ: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
デフォルトのシェル: /bin/bash (または $SHELL 環境変数)
構成パス:
Roo コード: ~/.config/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
クロード デスクトップ: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
シェルパスの例:
バッシュ: /bin/bash
sh: /bin/sh
zsh: /usr/bin/zsh
オプションでカスタム シェルを指定することもできます。
"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
}/path/to/super-shell-mcpを、リポジトリのクローンを作成した実際のパスに置き換えます。
注記：
Roo Codeの場合：セキュリティ上の理由から、
alwaysAllow空の配列[]に設定することを推奨します。これにより、コマンド実行前に承認を求めるプロンプトが表示されます。特定のコマンドをプロンプトなしで許可したい場合は、そのコマンドの名前を配列に追加します。例："alwaysAllow": ["execute_command", "get_whitelist"]。Claude Desktopの場合：セキュリティ上の理由から、
alwaysAllowをfalseに設定することをお勧めします。Claude Desktopでは、配列ではなくブール値を使用します。falsefalseすべてのコマンドに承認が必要であり、trueはすべてのコマンドがプロンプトなしで許可されることを意味します。重要：
alwaysAllowパラメータは、Super Shell MCPサーバー自体ではなく、MCPクライアント（Roo CodeまたはClaude Desktop）によって処理されます。クライアントはサーバーにリクエストを送信する前に承認プロセスを処理するため、サーバーはどちらの形式でも正常に動作します。
サーバーは次の MCP ツールを公開します。
get_platform_info現在のプラットフォームとシェルに関する情報を取得します。
{}execute_command現在のプラットフォームでシェル コマンドを実行します。
{
"command": "ls",
"args": ["-la"]
}get_whitelistホワイトリストに登録されたコマンドのリストを取得します。
{}add_to_whitelistコマンドをホワイトリストに追加します。
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "safe",
"description": "Run Python 3 scripts"
}update_security_levelホワイトリストに登録されたコマンドのセキュリティ レベルを更新します。
{
"command": "python3",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval"
}remove_from_whitelistホワイトリストからコマンドを削除します。
{
"command": "python3"
}get_pending_commands承認待ちのコマンドのリストを取得します。
{}approve_command保留中のコマンドを承認します。
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here"
}deny_command保留中のコマンドを拒否します。
{
"commandId": "command-uuid-here",
"reason": "This command is potentially dangerous"
}サーバーには、検出されたプラットフォームに基づいて自動的に選択されるプラットフォーム固有のコマンド ホワイトリストが含まれています。
echo - 標準出力にテキストを出力する
ls - ディレクトリの内容を一覧表示する
pwd - 作業ディレクトリを印刷する
echo - 標準出力にテキストを出力する
cat - ファイルを連結して印刷する
grep - ファイル内のパターンを検索する
find - ディレクトリ階層内のファイルを検索する
cd - ディレクトリを変更する
head - ファイルの最初の部分を出力する
tail - ファイルの最後の部分を出力する
wc - 改行、単語、バイト数を出力する
dir - ディレクトリの内容を一覧表示する
type - テキストファイルの内容を表示する
findstr - ファイル内の文字列を検索する
where - プログラムを探す
whoami - 現在のユーザーを表示する
hostname - コンピュータ名を表示する
ver - オペレーティングシステムのバージョンを表示する
copy - ファイルをコピーする
move - ファイルを移動する
mkdir - ディレクトリを作成する
rmdir - ディレクトリを削除する
rename - ファイルの名前を変更する
attrib - ファイル属性を変更する
mv - ファイルを移動（名前変更）する
cp - ファイルとディレクトリをコピーする
mkdir - ディレクトリを作成する
touch - ファイルのタイムスタンプを変更するか、空のファイルを作成する
chmod - ファイルモードビットを変更する
chown - ファイルの所有者とグループを変更する
del - ファイルを削除する
erase - ファイルを削除する
format - ディスクをフォーマットする
runas - 別のユーザーとしてプログラムを実行する
rm - ファイルまたはディレクトリを削除する
sudo - 別のユーザーとしてコマンドを実行する
すべてのコマンドは、MCPサーバーを実行しているユーザーの権限で実行されます。
承認を必要とするコマンドは、明示的に承認されるまでキューに保持されます。
禁止されたコマンドは決して実行されない
サーバーはシェルインジェクションを防ぐためにexecの代わりにNode.jsのexecFileを使用します。
引数は、指定された場合に許可されたパターンに対して検証されます。
ホワイトリストを拡張するには、 add_to_whitelistツールを使用します。例:
{
"command": "npm",
"securityLevel": "requires_approval",
"description": "Node.js package manager"
}Super Shell MCP は、 https://www.npmjs.com/package/super-shell-mcpで npm パッケージとして入手できます。
NPX 方式 (構成セクションのオプション 1 を参照) を使用すると、いくつかの利点があります。
手動セットアップ不要: リポジトリのクローン作成、依存関係のインストール、プロジェクトのビルドは不要
自動更新: 常に最新の公開バージョンを使用します
クロスプラットフォームの互換性: Windows、macOS、Linuxで同じように動作します
簡素化された構成: 絶対パスのない短い構成
メンテナンスの軽減: 管理や更新が必要なローカルファイルはありません
GitHub から最新の開発バージョンを直接使用したい場合は、次の手順に従ってください。
"super-shell": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"github:cfdude/super-shell-mcp"
],
"alwaysAllow": [], // For Roo Code
"disabled": false
}独自に変更したバージョンを npm に公開する場合:
詳細を記載したpackage.jsonを更新します
「bin」フィールドが適切に設定されていることを確認します。
"bin": {
"super-shell-mcp": "./build/index.js"
}npm に公開:
npm publishNPX を使用した MCP クライアントとの最適な統合のために、このプロジェクトは次のベスト プラクティスに従います。
実行可能エントリ ポイント: メイン ファイルには、シェバン ライン ( #!/usr/bin/env node ) が含まれており、ビルド中に実行可能になります。
パッケージ構成:
"type": "module" - ESモジュールが使用されていることを確認する
"bin"フィールド - コマンド名をエントリポイントにマッピングします
"files"フィールド - 公開時に含めるファイルを指定します
"prepare"スクリプト - インストール時にコンパイルが行われるようにします
TypeScript 構成:
"module": "NodeNext" - 適切な ES モジュールのサポート
"moduleResolution": "NodeNext" - ESモジュールと一貫性があります
自動インストールと実行：
MCPクライアント構成では、 npx -yを使用してパッケージを自動的にインストールして実行します。
プロセスはバックグラウンドで実行されるため、ターミナルウィンドウは固定されません。
出版プロセス：
# Update version in package.json
npm version patch # or minor/major as appropriate
# Build and publish
npm publishこれらの方法により、別のターミナル ウィンドウを必要とせずに MCP クライアントによって MCP サーバーが自動的に起動されるようになり、ユーザー エクスペリエンスと運用効率が向上します。
PowerShell スクリプト実行ポリシー
問題: PowerShell が「このシステムではスクリプトの実行が無効になっています」というエラーでスクリプトの実行をブロックする場合があります
解決策: PowerShellを管理者として実行し、 Set-ExecutionPolicy RemoteSigned実行するか、シェルを構成するときに-ExecutionPolicy Bypassパラメータを使用します。
パスセパレータ
問題: Windows ではパスにバックスラッシュ ( \ ) が使用されるため、JSON ではエスケープする必要があります。
解決策: JSON 構成ファイルで二重のバックスラッシュ ( \\ ) を使用します (例: C:\\Windows\\System32\\cmd.exe
コマンドが見つかりません
問題: Windows には、 ls 、 grepなどの Unix コマンドがありません。
解決策: Windows の同等の機能を使用する ( lsの代わりにdir 、 grepの代わりにfindstr )
シェル権限
問題: コマンド実行時に権限が拒否されました
解決策: chmod +x /path/to/shellでシェルに適切な権限があることを確認します。
環境変数
問題: MCP サーバーで環境変数が利用できない
解決策: シェルのプロファイル ファイル ( .zshrc 、 .bashrcなど) で環境変数を設定します。
シェル検出の問題
問題: サーバーが正しいシェルを検出できない
解決策: 構成でシェルパスを明示的に指定する
コマンド実行タイムアウト
問題: コマンドの実行に時間がかかり、タイムアウトする
解決策: コマンドサービスコンストラクターのタイムアウト値を増やす
サーバーには、デバッグと監視を容易にするためにログをファイルに書き込む包括的なログ システムが含まれています。
ログファイルの場所
デフォルト: サーバーのディレクトリ内のlogs/super-shell-mcp.log
ログディレクトリは自動的に作成され、Gitによって追跡されます（.gitkeepファイルを使用）
ログファイル自体は.gitignoreによってGitから除外されます。
サーバー操作、コマンド実行、承認ワークフローに関する詳細情報が含まれています
ログレベル
INFO : 一般的な運用情報
DEBUG : 詳細なデバッグ情報
エラー: エラー状態と例外
ログの表示
ログを確認するには、標準のファイル表示コマンドを使用します。
# View the entire log
cat logs/super-shell-mcp.log
# Follow log updates in real-time
tail -f logs/super-shell-mcp.logログ内容
サーバーの起動と構成
コマンド実行要求と結果
承認ワークフロー イベント (保留、承認、拒否)
エラー状態とトラブルシューティング情報
ホワイトリスト管理
問題: ホワイトリストにカスタムコマンドを追加する必要がある
解決策: add_to_whitelistツールを使用して、環境に固有のコマンドを追加します。
このMCPサーバーはMITライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。つまり、MITライセンスの条件に従って、ソフトウェアを自由に使用、改変、配布することができます。詳細については、プロジェクトリポジトリのLICENSEファイルをご覧ください。
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).
