X-Ways MCP

by Donovoi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

testenv_run

Execute harness checks on a disposable fixture environment to validate tool compatibility and automated workflows.

Instructions

Run harness checks against an existing disposable fixture environment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "testenv_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No	CASE-001
`evidence_os`	No	windows
`root`	No	test-envs

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like safety, side effects, or permissions. It only states the action without mentioning whether it is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific privileges.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded to include parameter context or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema explanation (although output schema exists), the description fails to provide adequate context for correct invocation. The agent is left guessing about valid values or return behavior.

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?

The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (name, evidence_os, root). Schema description coverage is 0%, and defaults are present but unexplained. The agent has no context for what these parameters represent.

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 'Run' and the resource 'harness checks' against an existing disposable fixture environment. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like testenv_create and testenv_destroy, which manage the environment lifecycle.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings alone.

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