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

mcp-shell-server-example

by mohamedelamraoui1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

terminal_linux

Run a Linux shell command inside a container and return its output. Provides isolated command execution.

Instructions

Run a shell command inside the container (Linux sh) 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_linux"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools