Skip to main content
Glama
yonaka15

Simple Subprocess MCP Server

by yonaka15
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Simple Subprocess MCP Server

シェルコマンドを実行するシンプルなModel Context Protocol (MCP) サーバー

概要

このMCPサーバーは、LLMアプリケーションから任意のシェルコマンドを安全に実行できるツールを提供します。FastMCPフレームワークを使用して構築されており、subprocessモジュールを通じてコマンドを実行します。

Related MCP server: PermShell MCP

機能

  • 任意のシェルコマンドの実行

  • 30秒のタイムアウト設定

  • エラーハンドリング

  • 標準出力とエラー出力の取得

必要条件

  • Python 3.11+

  • uv (パッケージマネージャー)

インストール

# 依存関係をインストール
uv sync

使用方法

1. サーバーの起動

# 直接実行
uv run python server.py

# または fastmcp コマンドを使用
uv run fastmcp run server.py

2. テストクライアントの実行

uv run python test_client.py

3. LLMアプリケーションとの統合

Claude Desktop等のMCP対応アプリケーションで使用する場合、設定ファイルにサーバーのパスを追加してください。

API

run_command(command: str) -> str

指定されたシェルコマンドを実行し、結果を返します。

パラメータ:

  • command: 実行するシェルコマンド（文字列）

戻り値:

  • 成功時: コマンドの標準出力

  • エラー時: エラーメッセージ（終了コードとエラー出力を含む）

例:

# ファイル一覧を取得
result = await client.call_tool("run_command", {"command": "ls -la"})

# Webサイトから連絡先情報を抽出
result = await client.call_tool("run_command", {
    "command": "curl -sL \"[URL]\" | grep -i contact"
})

セキュリティ考慮事項

⚠️ 注意: このサーバーは任意のシェルコマンドを実行できるため、信頼できる環境でのみ使用してください。

推奨される対策

  1. サンドボックス環境での実行

  2. コマンドフィルタリングの実装

  3. 実行権限の制限

  4. ログ監視の実装

ファイル構造

simple-subprocess/
├── server.py          # MCPサーバーのメイン実装
├── test_client.py     # テスト用クライアント
├── pyproject.toml     # プロジェクト設定
├── uv.lock           # 依存関係ロックファイル
└── README.md         # このファイル

実装例

Webスクレイピング

curl -sL "[URL]" | grep -i -E "(contact|お問い合わせ|連絡|メール|mail|email|tel|電話)"

ファイル操作

# ディレクトリ内容の確認
ls -la

# ファイルの検索
find . -name "*.py" -type f

# テキストファイルの内容確認
cat README.md

システム情報の取得

# システム情報
uname -a

# ディスク使用量
df -h

# プロセス一覧
ps aux

トラブルシューティング

タイムアウトエラー

コマンドの実行時間が30秒を超える場合、タイムアウトエラーが発生します。長時間実行されるコマンドの場合は、server.pyのtimeout値を調整してください。

パーミッションエラー

実行権限が不足している場合は、適切な権限を付与するか、sudo を使用してください（ただし、セキュリティリスクを考慮してください）。

ライセンス

MIT License

貢献

プルリクエストやイシューの報告を歓迎します。

Available Tools

1 tool
run_commandC

Execute a shell command using subprocess and return the output

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution and output return, but fails to disclose critical traits such as security implications, error handling, timeouts, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes shell commands, which can be destructive or resource-intensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of executing shell commands, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and only an output schema (which doesn't explain behavior), it lacks essential context such as safety warnings, execution environment, or error details. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only implies that 'command' is a shell command without adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. No details on command format, allowed syntax, or constraints are provided, failing to adequately explain the parameter's semantics.

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 the action ('Execute a shell command') and resource ('using subprocess'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes the tool's function well, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't applicable. However, it lacks specificity about the type of shell or environment, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any context for its application. It merely states what the tool does without indicating scenarios, limitations, or best practices, leaving the agent with insufficient usage context.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'run_command' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too few for a server's purpose, as it severely limits functionality and scope. This feels thin and inadequate for handling subprocess operations beyond basic command execution.

Completeness2/5

The server is severely incomplete for subprocess management. It only offers command execution, lacking essential operations like checking process status, handling input/output streams, or managing subprocess lifecycle (e.g., kill, wait).

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • 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

  • 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.
    11
    14,123
    688
    MIT

  • Shell Server

    sergio-deras
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables users to execute arbitrary shell commands through a terminal tool. It supports custom working directories, configurable execution timeouts, and safe command parsing using shlex.

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yonaka15/simple-subprocess-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server