run_command_sudoExecute privileged shell commands with sudo on Ubuntu/Linux systems. Use for operations not covered by structured tools, such as package purge or firewall rules.
Execute an arbitrary shell command with sudo. Same limits as run_command. Use for privileged operations not covered by structured tools (e.g. apt purge, iptables).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Shell command to execute with sudo |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is covered. The description adds the privileged-escalation detail, but 'Same limits as run_command' references constraints without stating them, leaving the actual limits undefined. Adequate but with a real gap the description could have closed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then routing guidance. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output-less design and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the unexplained 'same limits as run_command', which leaves a behavioral constraint undefined.
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 100% and there is exactly one parameter, already documented as 'Shell command to execute with sudo'. The description only restates 'arbitrary shell command' and adds no syntax, escaping, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (execute arbitrary shell command) and qualifies it with 'with sudo', clearly separating it from run_command (unprivileged) and the structured apt/service/zfs tools. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from siblings without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly says to 'use for privileged operations not covered by structured tools' and gives concrete examples (apt purge, iptables), which routes the agent away from the structured siblings. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the fallback for non-privileged commands explicitly, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.