X-Ways MCP

by Donovoi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

create_xtension_scaffold

Creates a local X-Tension bridge scaffold with API provenance notes for integrating X-Ways Forensics automation.

Instructions

Generate a local X-Tension bridge scaffold with API provenance notes.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_xtension_scaffold"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`output_root`	No	xtensions
`purpose`	No
`api_reference`	No
`documented_symbols`	No
`undocumented_symbols`	No
`force`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a scaffold is generated but does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), required permissions, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is a single short sentence, it is too brief for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks essential information and feels under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits, even though an output schema may exist.

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. However, the description adds no parameter-level details. Users must infer meanings from names like 'documented_symbols' or 'force' without any explanation of their roles or formats.

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's main action: 'Generate a local X-Tension bridge scaffold with API provenance notes.' It specifies a unique verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on different operations like building commands or caching manuals.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or suggested alternative tools for related tasks.

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