Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_run_script

Execute a JavaScript file with Node.js, passing optional arguments and setting a timeout to control script execution.

Instructions

Execute a JavaScript file with Node.js.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "node_run_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoOptional arguments to pass to the script.
pathYesPath to the .js file (absolute or relative to cwd).
timeoutNoExecution timeout in seconds. Default: 120.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Execute a JavaScript file with Node.js.' It does not disclose potential side effects, output handling, error behavior, or the fact that arbitrary code execution can be destructive.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise, though it may be too terse to provide essential context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary JS) and lack of annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not address safety, output capture, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but full schema coverage compensates for that.

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?

The description clearly states the action (execute) and resource (JavaScript file) with the runtime (Node.js), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_script or npm_run.

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. It implies usage for any .js file, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as run_script, npx_run, or run_python_script.

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