X-Ways MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

harness_init_case

Initializes a forensic case by creating a manifest, report stub, and audit log compatible with forensic-copilot for structured evidence handling.

Instructions

Create a forensic-copilot-compatible manifest, report stub, and audit log.

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": {
      "case_name": "<case_name>"
    },
    "name": "harness_init_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`case_name`	Yes
`input_roots`	No
`staging_root`	No	artifacts
`output_root`	No	reports
`depth`	No	triage
`evidence_os`	No	unknown
`evidence_mode`	No	unknown
`runner_boundary`	No	local

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is created but not side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or whether existing files are overwritten. Incomplete disclosure for a setup tool.

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?

The single sentence is concise but under-specified for an 8-parameter tool. It lacks structure or additional context, wasting the opportunity to convey important details briefly.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 8 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description fails to provide enough context for correct agent invocation. Missing return value info despite output schema existing.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., case_name, depth, evidence_os). Without linking parameters to the three created items, an AI cannot infer correct parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates three specific items (manifest, report stub, audit log) with a 'forensic-copilot-compatible' qualifier. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'case_run_manifest_template' which may also create manifests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workspace' or 'harness_folder_triage'. Missing prerequisites or context for invocation.

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