I’m about as likely to use this as buy a self-driving car at this point, but thought I’d point out that iTerm does know when the command has finished, thanks to its shell integration scripts, so does that help? Or if that’s not exposed, maybe just set the shell prompt to some distinctive value.
Why would you favor this approach over say, a command line tool that can pipe input into and out of a configurable AI backend, fork subprocesses to perform agent based tasks, etc. The amount of tokens is always bounded by what the user chooses to pipe into the tool. The Unix model is battle hardened, time tested approach. This tool seems like it locks you into iTerm2.
It may not have the same functionality, but there is an official AI plugin [1] for iTerm2 (that can be enabled from Settings > AI).
A shiver runs down my spine reading „full terminal control“. For me that is a definite no-go. We fight hard to get remote code execution abilities off our system and here we freely invite it. „Hey gpt let me sudo first so you can execute that“
Good work.
I wonder if there's really a need for separate write to terminal and read output functions? I was hoping that write command itself would execute and return the output of the command, saving back and forth latency.
> and it's not always clear when the job is done
I've authored a similar mcp [1] (but without terminal ui)
The way I solved it is by setting a special PS1 prompt. So as soon as I get that prompt I know the task is done. I wonder if a similar thing can be done in your mcp?
[1] https://github.com/rusiaaman/wcgw