Skip to main content
Glama
elimyliu

timeverse-command-mcp

by elimyliu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

timeverse-command-mcp

跨平台执行 shell / Python / Node 命令的 MCP (Model Context Protocol) Server

PyPI Python License

它能做什么？

让任意支持 MCP 的 AI 客户端（Timeverse Studio、Claude Desktop、Cursor、Continue 等）通过三个工具直接操作你的本地机器：

工具

作用

适用平台

bash

执行 shell 命令

macOS / Linux / Windows

python

执行 Python 代码片段

全平台

node

执行 JavaScript 代码片段

全平台

典型用法（让 Claude 帮你做）：

"用 bash 看一下 /tmp 目录下最大的 5 个文件"
"用 python 算一下 1+2+...+100"
"用 node 把这个 JSON 解析后告诉我 user.name"

Related MCP server: MCP Shell Server

安装

方式 1：pip（推荐）

pip install timeverse-command-mcp

安装完成后会得到一个 timeverse-command-mcp 命令。

方式 2：源码安装（开发用）

git clone https://github.com/elimyliu/timeverse-command-mcp.git
cd timeverse-command-mcp
pip install -e ".[dev]"

接入 Claude Desktop

编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件（位置见下表）：

操作系统

配置路径

macOS

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Windows

%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

Linux

~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

加入以下内容：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "timeverse-command": {
      "command": "timeverse-command-mcp",
      "args": [],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

重启 Claude Desktop，工具列表中会出现 bash / python / node 三个工具。

详细配置说明、Cursor / Continue / Cline 等其他客户端的接入方式，请参考 docs/USAGE.md。

Python API

除了作为 MCP Server，本包也可以作为 Python 库使用：

import asyncio
from timeverse_command import AsyncCommandSession

async def main():
    session = AsyncCommandSession(
        tool_call_id="demo-1",
        command="echo hello && echo world",
        tool_name="bash",
    )

    async for chunk in session.run():
        if chunk["stream"] == "stdout":
            print(f"[out] {chunk['delta']}")
        elif chunk["stream"] == "exit":
            print(f"[exit] code={chunk['exit_code']} status={chunk['status']}")

asyncio.run(main())

输出：

[out] hello
[out] world
[exit] code=0 status=success

更多 API（取消、全局执行器等）见 docs/USAGE.md。

开发

# 克隆
git clone https://github.com/elimyliu/timeverse-command-mcp.git
cd timeverse-command-mcp

# 安装依赖（含 dev 工具）
pip install -e ".[dev]"

# 运行测试
pytest

# 代码风格
ruff check src/
ruff format src/

# 类型检查
mypy src/

协议

  • MCP 传输: stdio（标准）

  • 不依赖任何私有扩展，可在所有支持 MCP stdio 的客户端中使用

  • 增强能力（流式 / 取消 / 危险确认）由 TimeVerse Studio 客户端专属提供，其他客户端以"基础能力"运行

许可证

MIT © TimeVerse Studio

Available Tools

3 tools
bashB

在本地 shell（macOS/Linux: zsh/bash, Windows: cmd/powershell）中执行命令。支持流式输出。常用场景：文件操作、查看系统信息、运行 CLI 工具。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYes要执行的 shell 命令
cwdNo工作目录（可选，默认为调用进程的当前目录）
timeoutNo超时秒数（可选，默认 60）

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions streaming output. Does not disclose potential destructive actions (e.g., rm, dd) or other safety behaviors. Fails to provide adequate transparency for a command 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Concise single sentence plus a list of common scenarios; no wasted words. Structured effectively for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema; description mentions streaming output but lacks details on exit codes, stderr handling, or security considerations. Minimum viable but could be more complete for a potentially dangerous tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it executes commands in a local shell, supports streaming output, and lists common use cases (file operations, system info, CLI tools), distinguishing it from siblings node and python.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for shell commands via listed scenarios, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (node, python). No alternatives or when-not-to-use mentioned.

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

nodeA

在本地 Node.js 中执行单段代码（node -e）。适合 JavaScript 计算、JSON 处理。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes要执行的 JavaScript 代码
timeoutNo超时秒数（可选，默认 60）

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that code executes locally via node -e, but does not mention potential side effects, security implications, sandboxing, or return value behavior. While not misleading, it lacks depth for a clear behavioral profile.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Execute single piece of code in local Node.js (node -e)') and adds relevant use cases. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers purpose and typical use. However, it omits details about output format or error handling, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, it is nearly complete for a straightforward execution tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: both 'code' and 'timeout' are already described adequately in the input schema properties. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 tool executes a single piece of code in local Node.js (node -e) and specifies typical use cases like JavaScript calculations and JSON processing. It differentiates from siblings (bash, python) by focusing on JavaScript.

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?

The description mentions suitability for JavaScript calculations and JSON processing, implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools (bash, python). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

pythonA

在本地 Python 3 解释器中执行单段代码（python -c）。适合快速计算、数据处理、调用 Python 库。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes要执行的 Python 代码（-c 参数形式）
timeoutNo超时秒数（可选，默认 60）

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes execution via 'python -c', implying a single code snippet in the local interpreter. It does not mention security or side effects but is clear about the execution mode.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (code execution) and lack of output schema, the description does not mention output format (stdout/stderr) or error handling. This leaves some gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that code is passed as '-c' argument, but otherwise does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('execute a single piece of code'), the resource ('local Python 3 interpreter'), and the mode ('python -c'). It also lists specific use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bash and node.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates suitable use cases ('quick calculations, data processing, calling Python libraries'), which implies when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention exclusions.

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.

  1. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedbash
    • First observednode
    • First observedpython
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The three tools are clearly distinct: bash runs shell commands, node runs JavaScript, and python runs Python. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are single-word runtime names (bash, node, python), following a consistent and intuitive pattern.

Tool Count5/5

3 tools is a well-scoped set for a code execution server, covering the most common interpreters without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers bash, node, and Python, which are the most common execution environments. A minor gap is the lack of file-based script execution, but for inline code snippets it is largely complete.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

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

  • Terminal MCP Server

    weidwonder
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    An MCP server that allows AI models to execute system commands on local machines or remote hosts via SSH, supporting persistent sessions and environment variables.
    1
    36
    28
    MIT

  • MCP Shell Server

    mako10k
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A secure MCP server for shell operations, terminal management, and process control, enabling AI assistants to safely execute commands and manage interactive sessions.
    13
    204
    6
    MIT

  • Shell MCP

    luciVuc
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A production-ready MCP server that enables AI assistants to execute shell commands, manage files, monitor system resources, and automate complex workflows with advanced features like stock tracking and web automation.
    7
    20
    MIT

  • machine-root-mcp

    tusharnain
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A self-hosted MCP server that gives AI coding assistants direct shell access to your local machine, enabling execution of arbitrary bash commands for development workflows.
    5,122
    -

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/elimyliu/timeverse-command-mcp'

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