action1-mcp-server

Run PowerShell on a Windows endpoint

action1_run_powershell

Destructive

Run PowerShell scripts on Windows endpoints through Action1 with dry-run preview, endpoint/group targeting, and SYSTEM-level execution for remote administration.

Instructions

Run PowerShell on a Windows endpoint via the run_powershell template. Runs as SYSTEM (no user profile).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Friendly action name.
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Endpoint UUID, or Group ID when target_type='EndpointGroup'.
`script_text`	Yes	Script source.
`target_type`	No	Endpoint (default) or EndpointGroup for fan-out.
`retry_minutes`	No	Retry window in minutes when endpoint is offline.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.
`timeout_minutes`	No	Per-action timeout in minutes (number or digit-string).
`success_exit_codes`	No	Comma-separated success exit codes.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / properties / retry_minutes / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/timeout_minutes"
```

addedInput schema / properties / retry_minutes / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 10080,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^\\d+$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: execution runs as SYSTEM with no user profile, which matters for scripts touching user-scoped paths. However, it omits the preview-by-default/confirm-to-execute gate and the offline retry window semantics, which are the most surprising behaviors for an execution tool.

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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing, with the capability stated first and the execution-context caveat second. No filler, though the extreme brevity for an 11-parameter destructive tool pushes the burden onto contextual completeness.

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?

For a destructive SYSTEM-level execution tool with 11 parameters, the description never mentions that dry_run defaults to preview (requiring deliberate execution), never mentions the confirmation gate, and never routes to run_bash_macos or run_script. The output schema and full param coverage reduce the burden, but the safety-relevant workflow context an agent needs is absent.

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 all 11 parameters (endpoint_id, script_text, dry_run, confirm, target_type, retry/timeout, response_format, success_exit_codes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is not a baseline-beating contribution.

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?

Specific verb (Run PowerShell) plus resource constraint (Windows endpoint), which implicitly separates it from action1_run_bash_macos. It also names the underlying mechanism (run_powershell template). It does not explicitly contrast with action1_run_script or action1_execute_and_wait, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The Windows platform qualifier implies when this tool applies versus the macOS sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as action1_run_script or action1_execute_and_wait. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server