Skip to main content
Glama
mohamedelamraoui1

mcp-shell-server-example

by mohamedelamraoui1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools have distinct functions: benign_tool downloads via curl, terminal runs local commands, terminal_linux runs containerized commands. However, the two terminal tools share the same core purpose (shell execution) and could be confused without careful reading.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Names use snake_case, but 'benign_tool' does not follow a verb_noun pattern like the others. 'terminal' and 'terminal_linux' are similar but 'terminal' is generic, breaking consistency.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for a shell server focused on command execution and file retrieval. No unnecessary bloat or insufficiency.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers core shell operations with local and containerized execution, plus URL downloads. Minor gap: no file management or process control tools, but essential workflows are supported.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It mentions using curl but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, timeouts, or side effects. The core issue is the mismatch between the described action and the lack of a URL parameter.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is short but fails to include essential information. It is not well-structured as it omits the critical detail of how the URL is provided, making it inadequate despite its brevity.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The tool claims to download content but provides no mechanism for specifying the URL. The description does not explain how the tool operates without parameters. The presence of an output schema is mentioned but not provided, leaving the tool functionally incomplete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% because there are no parameters, but the description references a 'specified URL' which implies a parameter that does not exist. This contradicts the input schema, adding no value and causing confusion.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The description states the tool downloads content from a URL using curl, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it claims a 'specified URL' but the input schema has no parameters, making the purpose unclear and potentially misleading. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools terminal and terminal_linux.

    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 alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose the destructive potential, security risks, or side effects of executing arbitrary shell commands. The description merely states the obvious functionality.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Very concise but at the expense of missing critical information. The description is efficient but incomplete.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's dangerous nature (running shell commands), the description lacks necessary warnings, return value details, and behavioral context. Completely inadequate for a high-risk tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value by explaining that 'command' is a shell command, which is already implied by the parameter name.

    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?

    Description clearly states it runs a shell command on the local machine, but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'terminal_linux' which may have a different scope.

    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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or caveats provided.

    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?

    No annotations provided; the description does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, timeouts, or destructive capabilities of commands. For a command execution tool, this is minimal.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is very short (one sentence plus an Args line) and concise, but lacks structure such as front-loading critical context or separating usage notes.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the simple schema (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and environment. However, it misses safety warnings and error behavior, which are important for command execution.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema); the description only says 'The shell command to execute', adding little beyond the schema title 'Command'. No format, constraints, or examples provided.

    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 runs a shell command inside a container using Linux sh, with a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'shell command inside the container'. It distinguishes from sibling 'terminal' by specifying the shell type.

    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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'terminal' or other alternatives. No context on prerequisites, security considerations, or when not to use.

    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

mcp-shell-server-example MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-shell-server-example 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/mohamedelamraoui1/mcp-shell-server-example'

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