Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
weezerzero

shellserver

by weezerzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

shellserver

一个使用 Python MCP SDK (FastMCP) 构建的小型 模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器。它提供了一个工具，用于在运行服务器进程的机器上执行 shell 命令。

要求

  • Python 3.14+ (参见 pyproject.toml)

  • uv 用于安装和运行依赖项

Related MCP server: Shell MCP Server

设置

克隆或复制此仓库，然后在项目根目录下执行：

uv sync

运行服务器

该服务器使用 stdio 传输（FastMCP 的默认设置）。

uv run python server.py

请勿从服务器进程向 stdout 管道传输额外数据；MCP 使用 stdout 进行 JSON-RPC 通信。server.py 中的日志记录已重定向至 stderr。

工具：terminal_tool

参数

类型

必需

默认值

描述

command

string

是

—

要运行的 shell 命令

cwd

string

否

—

子进程的工作目录

timeout_seconds

number

否

120

终止进程前的等待秒数

该工具返回一个包含 exit_code、stdout 和 stderr 的文本块。如果命令超过超时时间，进程将被终止，响应将指示超时。

连接客户端（本地运行示例）

将您的 MCP 主机指向 uv，并将此项目作为工作目录。配置示例结构如下：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "shellserver": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["run", "python", "server.py"],
      "cwd": "/absolute/path/to/shellserver"
    }
  }
}

请根据您的编辑器或客户端调整键名和 cwd。

安全性

此服务器会在宿主机上执行任意 shell 命令。任何能够针对此服务器调用 MCP 工具的人，实际上都拥有该机器的 shell 访问权限。请仅在受信任的主机上、使用受信任的客户端，并在充分了解风险的情况下使用。

Available Tools

2 tools
benign_toolBenign ToolC

Download and return a fixed text file via curl.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of curl for downloading but does not mention side effects, safety implications, or return behavior. The word 'benign' implies safety but is not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for behavior, parameters). It is efficient but under-specified.

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 has one parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, return value (despite an output schema existing), or usage context. A more complete description would include parameter details and behavioral notes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter ('timeout_seconds') with 0% coverage (no description in the schema). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose or default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Download and return a fixed text file via curl'), with a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from the sibling 'terminal_tool' which is likely for arbitrary commands.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context or prerequisites.

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

terminal_toolTerminal ToolB

Run a shell command on the host and return stdout, stderr, and exit code.

The command is executed with the system shell. Use only in trusted environments.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYes
cwdNo
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions execution via system shell and the trust requirement, implying potential dangers, but does not specify whether the tool can modify files or require special permissions.

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 sentences with no wasted words, but could be better structured (e.g., separate usage notes). Front-loads the core action.

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 potential for arbitrary command execution, the description is too brief. Lacks details on command escaping, side effects, or output structure beyond basic terms. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing safety and behavior details.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description names only 'command' implicitly; 'cwd' and 'timeout_seconds' are not explained. Despite self-explanatory names, an agent lacks details on expected formats and defaults.

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 that tool runs a shell command and returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'benign_tool', which could indicate a different purpose.

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?

Provides a safety guideline 'Use only in trusted environments', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. Lacks context on prerequisites.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedbenign_tool
    • First observedterminal_tool
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one downloads a fixed text file, the other executes shell commands. There is no ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent adjective_noun pattern in snake_case (benign_tool, terminal_tool), making them predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a shell execution server. While it covers the basic need, it is below the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools.

Completeness4/5

The core functionality of running shell commands is covered by terminal_tool. The presence of benign_tool as a fixed downloader is a minor addition; agents can work around the lack of other shell utilities like file listing.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-shell-server

    tumf
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A secure shell command execution server implementing the Model Context Protocol (MCP). This server allows remote execution of whitelisted shell commands with support for stdin input.
    1
    198
    MIT

  • Shell MCP Server

    odysseus0
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that allows LLMs to execute shell commands and receive their output in a controlled manner.
    7
    MIT

  • Simple Subprocess MCP Server

    yonaka15
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLM applications to safely execute shell commands with error handling and timeout settings.
    1
    -

  • SSH MCP Server

    tufantunc
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that allows LLMs to securely execute shell commands on remote Linux and Windows systems via SSH. It supports password and key-based authentication, command timeouts, and sudo elevation for administrative tasks.
    14
    7,471 npm
    782
    MIT