Skip to main content
Glama
mcollina

PermShell MCP

by mcollina
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: execute-command runs arbitrary shell commands, while system-info retrieves system information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a consistent hyphenated naming style (execute-command and system-info), which is readable and predictable. However, the pattern is not a standard verb_noun convention, and with only two tools, it's hard to assess full consistency, but there are no deviations in the limited set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a shell-related purpose, as it might lack operations like file management, process control, or environment handling. While the tools cover basic execution and info, the count is borderline low for a typical shell utility scope.

    Completeness2/5

    For a shell server, there are significant gaps: no tools for file operations (e.g., list, read, write), process management, network commands, or environment variables. The surface is severely incomplete, as agents cannot perform common shell tasks beyond command execution and system info retrieval.

  • 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute a shell command' implies a potentially dangerous operation with side effects, but it doesn't mention security risks, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. It lacks critical context about execution environment, error handling, or output behavior.

    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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite being minimal.

    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 this is a potentially dangerous execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets executed, security implications, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that could have significant side effects, this level of documentation is insufficient.

    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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

    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 'Execute a shell command' clearly states the verb ('execute') and resource ('shell command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'system-info', which appears to be a read-only system information tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

    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 alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, security considerations, or when to choose this over other execution methods. The sibling tool 'system-info' seems unrelated, so no explicit comparison is made.

    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 states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned, format, potential side effects, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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 ('Get system information')—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy or fluff.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'system information' includes (e.g., OS, hardware, network details) or the return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

    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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Get system information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('system information'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'execute-command', which might also provide system-related data.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'execute-command' or other alternatives. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

    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

perm-shell-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

perm-shell-mcp 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/mcollina/perm-shell-mcp'

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