Execute shell commands on a 1Panel v1.x server to administer containers, files, databases, and websites. Optionally specify a working directory for each command.
Execute command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: no permissions required, no statement that this is an arbitrary-command mutation, no mention of sandboxing, timeouts, or side effects. For a raw command executor this is a critical omission.
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?
Two words are not concise but under-specified; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to load. It wastes no words only because it has almost none.
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 that runs arbitrary commands, with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine execution context, safety profile, or return behavior.
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?
Both parameters (command, cwd) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either — it does not explain that command is a shell string or that cwd sets the working directory. The description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
"Execute command" restates the tool name exec_command almost verbatim, making it a tautology rather than a description of purpose. It does at least signal a shell/command execution capability, but it gives no indication of scope, target environment, or how it differs from any sibling.
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?
There is no guidance at all on when to use this tool, what it operates against, or what alternatives exist. With dozens of sibling tools covering files, containers, and services, the agent has nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.