ryns-code-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Send Process Input

send_input

Sends stdin to a running process so you can interact with prompts or commands; appends a newline when the process expects Enter.

Instructions

Send stdin to a running process. Append a newline when the process expects Enter.

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": {
      "process_id": "<process_id>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "send_input"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`newline`	No
`process_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens if process_id is invalid or the process has exited, whether the call blocks waiting for the process, or whether it returns any confirmation. For an input-injection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the non-obvious newline behavior.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition should at least mention failure behavior or how results are retrieved; instead that context is absent.

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 0% and none of the three parameters are documented in the schema. The description does add real meaning for 'input' (stdin content) and 'newline' ('append a newline when the process expects Enter'), but process_id is left entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send stdin to a running process. This clearly separates it from siblings like start_process, process_output, and kill_process. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands just below the top score.

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?

The phrase 'running process' implies a prerequisite (the process must already exist via start_process), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to use process_output to read the result before or after sending input.

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