MCP X-Platform

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_compatibility_report

Generate a cross-platform compatibility report by analyzing a codebase for platform-specific APIs, file path problems, line ending inconsistencies, and shell command incompatibilities across Windows, macOS, and Linux.

Instructions

Generate comprehensive cross-platform compatibility report

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "generate_compatibility_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Project root path
`format`	No	Report format	summary
`severity`	No	Minimum severity to include	medium
`targetPlatforms`	No	Target platforms for analysis

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Generate comprehensive cross-platform compatibility report' and gives no insight into side effects, required permissions, performance implications, or what happens on error.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving brevity. However, it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points or examples) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the report contains, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an 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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Parameters like 'format', 'severity', and 'targetPlatforms' are fully defined in the schema with enums and defaults, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'cross-platform compatibility report', specifying a comprehensive scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_build_systems' or 'analyze_dependencies' which are more focused.

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 implies use when a broad compatibility overview is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'analyze_file_paths' or 'analyze_line_endings'. No exclusion criteria or context provided.

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

Deploy Server