Skip to main content
Glama

skill_run

Destructive

Execute a skill's declared runnable script with an argument array, returning exit code and output after user confirmation.

Instructions

Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array. Returns the exit code and the captured output; a non-zero exit is a normal, reported outcome. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview of exactly what would run and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoArguments passed as an argv array. There is no shell: nothing here is interpreted.
nameYesThe skill's name, exactly as skill_list reports it.
scriptYesThe exact script path skill_list reports for this skill.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
      -  "type": "boolean"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns the exit code and captured output, treats non-zero exit as a normal reported outcome, and describes the two-step confirmation fallback with preview and confirmToken. It does not contradict the annotations. Some confirmation details are also present in the schema's confirmToken description, so not everything is net-new, but the return-value disclosure is valuable given no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then explains confirmation and return behavior in a dense but purposeful way. It is a single long sentence with several clauses, but every clause earns its place. It is concise enough while covering the essential operational details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool that executes arbitrary scripts, the description covers the key operational contract: what runs, how arguments are passed, what is returned, and how confirmation works. It does not discuss environment, working directory, or security boundaries beyond the confirmation step, but given the annotations and schema richness, the essentials are present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already thoroughly documents the confirmToken semantics: phase-1 response, never on first call, never invented, call again with same arguments, ignored when elicitation is supported. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like skill_list, skill_file, and skill_load, which handle enumeration, file access, and loading rather than execution. The title reinforces this with 'Run a declared skill script.'

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly communicates when the tool applies: it runs scripts that the skill has declared runnable, and it explains the confirmation flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives like skill_list or skill_load, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools