Dispatch a command to a running Kasm Workspaces session without waiting for output or exit code. Use it to trigger actions inside an active session.
Dispatch a command inside a session. Kasm's API never returns output/exit_code for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| kasm_id | Yes | ||
| working_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a critical behavior: the API never returns output or exit code, which is important for setting agent expectations. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or asynchronicity, leaving the agent to guess. This partial disclosure earns a mid-range score.
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 extremely concise, two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key limitation (no output). However, it is so brief that it under-delivers on necessary information, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness problem. As written, it is efficiently structured.
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 tool with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to define required parameters, explain the expected input format (e.g., how commands are provided), or mention prerequisites like an existing session. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional inference.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description gives no explanation of any parameters. With four parameters (including two required ones), the agent has no information about what kasm_id, command, working_dir, or user mean or how to populate them. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('dispatch a command') and the resource ('inside a session'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on session lifecycle (create, destroy, pause) or information retrieval, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that a kasm_id of an active session is required, nor does it indicate that this is the tool for executing commands as opposed to session management. The context implies it, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.