ryns-code-mcp

by rayenking

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

Execute Command

execute_command

Run a one-shot bash command inside RynsWorkspace for git, npm, tests, builds, and system inspection.

Instructions

Run a one-shot bash command inside RynsWorkspace. Good for git, npm, tests, builds and system inspection.

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": "execute_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cwd`	No	.
`command`	Yes
`timeout_ms`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

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 and discloses very little. It does not mention that this is unrestricted arbitrary command execution, whether there is a sandbox, what happens on timeout, whether output is truncated, or that the call is potentially destructive and mutating.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability statement first and the use-case hints second; nothing is padded. The use-case list is slightly loose but each item earns its place by directing an agent toward typical invocations.

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?

For a command-execution tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is well short of what an agent needs. Return shape (stdout/stderr/exit code), timeout behavior, and execution risk are all undisclosed.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that cwd is relative to the workspace root, what timeout_ms does or its 30s default, or that command runs through a shell rather than as an argv array.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Run a one-shot bash command") and scopes it to RynsWorkspace. "One-shot" is a meaningful qualifier that separates it from the persistent-process sibling, though it never names start_process explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Good for git, npm, tests, builds and system inspection" gives implied usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as start_process for long-running work or grep/read_file for pure inspection. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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