Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-shell-server-example

mcp-shell-server-example

by mohamedelamraoui1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

terminal

Execute shell commands on the local machine and retrieve their output for automation or testing.

Instructions

Run a shell command on the local machine and return its output.

Args:
    command: The shell command to execute.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "terminal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools