Display the current working directory path to help users navigate and manage files within the Shell-MCP server environment.
Show current working directory
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "shell_pwd"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Command arguments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state safety aspects, permission requirements, or output format. It provides basic behavioral information but lacks details about what exactly gets returned or any constraints.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for this simple tool. Every word earns its place by directly communicating the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single basic operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., 'returns the absolute path as a string'). For such a straightforward tool, the description provides adequate context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'args' parameter as 'Command arguments.' The description doesn't add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since this tool likely requires no arguments for its core function (showing the current directory), the minimal parameter documentation is adequate. The baseline would be 3 with full schema coverage, but the tool's simplicity and likely zero-argument usage justify a 4.
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 'Show current working directory' clearly states the specific verb ('show') and resource ('current working directory'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shell_ls (list files) or shell_ps (show processes) by focusing exclusively on directory path display.
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?
The description implies usage context (when you need to know the current directory path) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or about prerequisites, though the tool's simple purpose makes this less critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.