Execute shell commands with safety filtering and configurable timeout for system operations.
Executes a shell/PowerShell command on the local system (e.g. python, npm, git, tests, pip). Includes safety filtering and configurable timeout (default: 180s).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| working_dir | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'safety filtering' but does not clarify what commands are restricted, whether it can modify the system, or what the output looks like. No mention of permissions or potential destructive impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, using examples to illustrate the command type. No unnecessary filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear, the description lacks essential context for safe and effective use: parameter semantics, output format, safety filtering details, and differentiation from similar tools. An agent would need additional information to call it correctly in all cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only elaborates the timeout default. Parameters like command (required), working_dir, and the odd 'source' field are not explained. The agent must guess their meaning and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: executing a shell/PowerShell command on the local system, with concrete examples (python, npm, git, tests, pip). This distinguishes it from the batch variant and other file/agent tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like run_batch_commands. It mentions safety filtering and timeout but does not explain scenarios or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.