Lists available pre-configured host commands or executes a selected command directly on the host, bypassing sandbox isolation for administrative tasks.
Run a pre-configured host command or list available commands.
With no argument, returns the list of configured host commands and
their descriptions. With a command key, runs the matching
host command outside any sandbox (directly on the host).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the key behavioral trait: execution happens outside any sandbox, directly on the host. It also states the list-mode behavior; it stops short of describing side effects or return/error details, but 'pre-configured' narrows the expected blast radius.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose and then give the two invocation modes without wasted words. The sandbox warning is placed at the end but earns its place.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description combines with the schema to tell an agent exactly how to list and how to run. It does not describe what a run returns or error conditions, but the built-in list mode lets the agent discover available commands, so the definition is functionally complete.
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 description explains that `command` is a config key and that omitting it yields the command list, which is the core semantics beyond the bare schema. The phrase 'no argument' is slightly loose given the required `input` object, but the intended meaning is recoverable from the schema and the command-key wording.
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 first line names a clear action and resource: run a pre-configured host command or list available commands. It is specific enough to separate this tool from instance/job management siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?
The description gives explicit conditional usage: omit the command to list available commands, or supply a command key to execute. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the two-mode guidance is clear enough for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.