Skip to main content
Glama
jakenuts

mcp-cli-exec MCP Server

by jakenuts
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools have significant overlap in purpose, both executing CLI commands. While cli-exec-raw specifies 'raw' and 'structured output', the distinction is subtle and could easily lead to confusion about which to use for basic command execution. The descriptions don't clearly delineate when to choose one over the other.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a consistent cli-exec prefix pattern with hyphenated suffixes. The naming is predictable and readable, though the suffix conventions differ slightly (one has no suffix, the other uses '-raw'). This minor deviation keeps it from a perfect score.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a CLI execution domain. While it covers basic execution, more operations like command validation, history tracking, or batch processing might be expected. The count is borderline minimal but functional for core tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    For a CLI execution server, there are notable gaps. Missing tools for command chaining, environment variable management, output parsing beyond 'structured', or error handling make the surface incomplete. Agents will hit dead ends when needing advanced CLI interactions beyond simple execution.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like execution safety (potential for destructive commands), authentication needs, error handling, output format, or rate limits. The mention of 'timeout' in the schema isn't reinforced in the description.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Execute', 'CLI commands', 'specific working directory') earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a CLI execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on execution behavior (e.g., sequential vs. parallel), error propagation, security implications, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand tool usage.

    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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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

    Purpose4/5

    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 ('CLI commands') with additional context about working directory. It distinguishes from sibling 'cli-exec-raw' by specifying 'in a specific working directory', though the distinction isn't fully explicit about what makes the sibling different.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling 'cli-exec-raw'. It mentions the working directory context but doesn't explain alternative scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 mentions the tool executes commands and returns structured output, but fails to address critical behavioral aspects such as security implications, execution environment, error handling, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary CLI commands.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence that captures the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, 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.

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of executing arbitrary CLI commands (which involves security, environment, and side-effect considerations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'structured output' means, execution constraints, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

    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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as command syntax examples or timeout behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a raw CLI command and return structured output'. It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('raw CLI command'), and outcome ('return structured output'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cli-exec', which likely has similar functionality, 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.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 its sibling 'cli-exec' or other alternatives. It lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-cli-exec MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-cli-exec MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jakenuts/mcp-cli-exec'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server