Run shell commands through an opencode session by providing a session ID and command, enabling remote execution and output retrieval.
Run a shell command through the opencode session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| modelID | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| providerID | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it provides none. It says nothing about safety, permissions, side effects, execution environment, blocking behavior, or output format, which is a critical gap for a shell execution tool.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no annotations, so it is concise but not adequately sized for the complexity.
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?
Given six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, safety considerations, and execution behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 only 17% (just the directory parameter), and the description adds no meaning for any of the six parameters. It fails to explain the roles of agent, modelID, providerID, command, or sessionId, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the sparse schema.
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?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Run') and resource ('a shell command') and adds the context ('through the opencode session'). This distinguishes it from pure session-management siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other command-execution siblings like opencode_command_execute or opencode_run.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only implies usage from the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over siblings like opencode_command_execute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.