Shell MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: file operations (delete, read, write), directory listing, process listing, system info retrieval, and arbitrary command execution. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb+noun camelCase pattern (e.g., deleteFile, readFile, writeFile, listDir, listProcesses, getSystemInfo). The only outlier, 'exec', is a common and concise abbreviation that fits the pattern of action-oriented names.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a shell MCP server. It covers essential operations (file manipulation, directory browsing, system info, process management, and command execution) without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core file operations (create, read, delete), directory listing, system information, process listing, and general command execution. Minor gaps like file moving or directory creation can be handled via the 'exec' tool, so the surface is nearly complete for typical shell workflows.
Average 4.5/5 across 7 of 7 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 is failing
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses non-recursion, blocked sensitive system paths, and output format (formatted table with columns). No contradiction with annotations (none present). Missing discussion of error behavior or performance, but adequate for a list tool.
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?
Four sentences with clear front-loading: purpose + output, usage, recursion guidance, security. No redundant information. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how to use path, what it returns, limitations (non-recursion, blocked paths). Minor omission: doesn't specify behavior for invalid paths, but overall complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces path usage (absolute/relative, empty/null byte restrictions) but does not add new semantics beyond the schema explanation. The examples in schema are sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List the contents of a directory with metadata for each entry', specifying verb and resource. The columns (Type, Size, Modified, Name) make the output explicit. Distinguishes from sibling tools like readFile and exec by focusing on directory listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use: 'explore the filesystem, discover files, or verify directory structure'. Explicitly warns that it does not recurse and instructs to call again on child directories. No missing exclusions or comparisons to siblings, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it returns raw content as a single text block, throws errors on missing/unreadable files, and blocks sensitive paths. Lacks details on file size limits or behavior for binary files. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.
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?
Four concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple file read tool, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, output format, error conditions, and blocked paths. No output schema exists, but return value is described. Lacks only minor details like encoding confirmation, but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the 'path' parameter. The description adds valuable guidance: relative path resolution, null byte prohibition, and examples, exceeding the schema's basic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (read), resource (file), and output format (UTF-8 text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like writeFile and deleteFile, indicating a read-only operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear use cases (inspect configuration files, source code, logs) and notes blocked paths for sensitive directories. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but usage context is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key traits: atomic write, UTF-8 encoding, requirement for existing parent directories, blocking of sensitive system paths, and confirmation message with resolved path. This enables informed agent decisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with four sentences covering purpose, mechanics, use cases, and constraints. A minor improvement would be to front-load the most critical constraint (parent directories must exist) earlier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple file write tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: creation vs overwrite, atomicity, encoding, prerequisites, blocked paths, and return value. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, setting baseline at 3. The description repeats the schema's definitions and adds a few examples but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., format constraints, behavior nuances).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'write' and resource 'file', specifying create or overwrite behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like readFile and deleteFile by listing concrete use cases: create new files, update configuration, save generated code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases for writing files, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., exec for non-file operations) or state when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return contents in detail, including platform-specific commands (df -h, wmic). It does not mention permissions or error scenarios, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.
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 well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, then listing return contents, and ending with usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (OS, CPU, memory, disk, uptime, hostname) and provides usage context. It covers all necessary information for a tool with zero parameters and simple read functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, and the description confirms 'This tool takes no parameters.' With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline is 4; the description adds marginal value by explicitly stating the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive system information, listing specific resources (OS, CPU, memory, disk, uptime, hostname). It distinguishes itself from siblings like listProcesses by covering broader system state rather than a single aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases ('assess available resources, diagnose environment issues, gather context'), but does not directly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations (which are absent): non-interactive shell, stdout/stderr capture, exit code, timed-out flag, rate limiting, and blocked patterns. Fully informs agent of constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: starts with purpose, then output details, then restrictions. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a one-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers all necessary aspects: usage, output structure, constraints, and safety info. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (only 'command' param). Description adds examples (single command, pipeline, compound expression) and a non-empty requirement, going beyond schema to clarify usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a shell command and returns output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like readFile and writeFile by specifying it runs arbitrary commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context: when to use (CLI commands, scripts), limitations (destructive patterns blocked, sandbox mode restricts network/package managers), and prerequisites (sudo requires ALLOW_SUDO). Lacks direct comparison with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: irreversible operation, returns confirmation, throws error on nonexistent file, and blocks sensitive paths. This exceeds expectations for a simple delete tool.
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?
Five concise sentences front-load the main action and add critical details (irreversibility, error behavior, blocked paths) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage, behaviors, errors, and security restrictions. It leaves no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.
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?
Only one parameter (path) with full schema coverage (100%). The schema already describes constraints and examples. The description adds context about path resolution and blocked paths, but does not augment the parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it permanently deletes a single file from the filesystem. It specifies it's irreversible and only for regular files, distinguishing it from the sibling `exec` tool for directory removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (delete regular file) and when not to (use `exec` with rmdir for directories). Also warns about blocked sensitive system directories, providing clear context for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses output format (standard `ps aux` columns), filtering behavior, security constraint (special chars rejected), and error handling (returns message instead of error). No annotations to contradict.
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?
Two concise paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a 1-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, usage, output format, error behavior, and security.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value with examples, allowed characters, and security note. Slightly above baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List running processes on the host system using `ps aux`', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exec and file operations by focusing on process listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('check if a service is running, find process IDs, monitor resource usage, or verify background task') and describes behavior for no matches. No sibling confusion.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![shell-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luciVuc/shell-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luciVuc/shell-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![shell-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luciVuc/shell-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luciVuc/shell-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/luciVuc/shell-mcp'

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