ddev_execRun shell commands inside a DDEV project's container by specifying the command and optional project directory. Use it to execute Drush, Composer, or other CLI tasks within the project environment.
Run command in the container of the DDEV project under
project_name (a directory containing .ddev).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| project_name | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the command runs inside a container and that the target is a .ddev directory, but says nothing about whether the project must be running, how the command is interpreted (shell string vs argv), exit-code/output behavior, or the obvious security/risk profile of arbitrary command execution.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb and target container come first. The markdown backtick formatting around parameter names is slightly noisy but does not hurt readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an unannotated arbitrary-command-execution tool, the description omits critical context: startup prerequisites, how to choose it over lando_exec, and the risks/implications of running arbitrary commands. It is not complete enough to invoke safely and correctly without outside knowledge.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that project_name is a directory containing .ddev (not just a name), but gives no detail about how 'command' is parsed, quoted, or whether it accepts arguments. Partial compensation for the coverage gap justifies a middling score.
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 (Run) and resource (a command in the container of the DDEV project), so the agent understands it executes arbitrary commands inside a DDEV container. It implicitly separates itself from ddev_start/ddev_stop by being an exec operation, but never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling lando_exec, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the project must be started), and no mention of the sibling lando_exec for Lando-based projects. The description only defines what project_name points to, which is context rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.