Execute terminal commands within a claimed seat after validating them against domain permissions, preventing out-of-domain actions and concurrency collisions.
Execute terminal command validated against seat domain boundary permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat_id | Yes | Authorized seat ID. | |
| command_line | Yes | Command string to run (e.g. 'git status'). | |
| holder_session_id | Yes | Session holding the seat. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a permission validation gate exists, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what happens on rejection, whether execution is sandboxed or destructive, timeout limits, or side effects. For a terminal-command execution tool this is a serious transparency gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the permission constraint is placed where it matters. It is appropriately terse for such a short field set, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an execution tool.
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 command-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain safety profile, failure behavior, and return shape. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of invocation.
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 all three parameters (seat_id, command_line, holder_session_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (terminal command) plus a scoping constraint (validated against seat domain boundary permissions). The seat-lifecycle siblings (claim_seat, release_seat, get_seat_status, list_seats) are distinct enough that an agent can route here without confusion, though the description never names or contrasts them.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must a seat be claimed first via claim_seat?), and no indication of which commands are permitted or rejected. The only implicit signal is the 'seat domain boundary permissions' phrase, which hints at validation but is not operational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.