linux_execute_commandExecute read-only Linux commands to inspect system state, monitor infrastructure, and diagnose issues across host, Nginx, Docker, and PostgreSQL.
Выполнение произвольной read-only команды
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'read-only' provides a basic safety qualifier, but because no annotations exist the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose command execution details, timeouts, shell behavior, failure modes, or how side effects are prevented despite claiming read-only for arbitrary commands.
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 very short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool that executes arbitrary commands. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary operational detail.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential invocation and safety context for a high-risk arbitrary execution tool. Parameter structure, usage constraints, and expected behavior are all missing, making the definition incomplete.
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?
The schema provides no description coverage and the only parameter is a generic 'params' object that can be null. The description does not explain how to pass the command, what keys are expected, or how arguments should be structured.
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 clearly states the tool executes an arbitrary read-only command, which gives a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the specialized sibling tools like linux_host_stats or nginx_status, though it lacks examples of command formats.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommendations for alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.