uos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

test_app_in_vm

Run a full app-compatibility cycle in a QEMU VM: copy the app in, run install and run commands, capture exit/output, take a screenshot, and record PASS/FAIL.

Instructions

Full app-compat cycle on the rebuilt (or reference) OS: copy the app in, run install_cmd then the app, capture exit/output, screenshot, record PASS/FAIL.

install_cmd/run_cmd: single command lines (argv[0] + args). Results go to tests/results/ and tests/RESULTS.md in the workspace. Use reference apps the user owns (RULES.md).

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": {
      "vm": "<vm>"
    },
    "name": "test_app_in_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes
`args`	No
`label`	No
`run_cmd`	No
`timeout`	No
`app_path`	No
`workspace`	No
`install_cmd`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the concrete side effects (copies the app into a VM, runs an installer and the app, captures exit/output, screenshots) and where artifacts land (tests/results/, tests/RESULTS.md). However, it says nothing about VM state mutation, cleanup, or error/timeout handling for what is clearly a side-effecting orchestration tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the workflow, then two focused second-paragraph clauses on command format and artifact locations. Reasonably tight with little filler, though the arg-format note is terse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description does convey the overall flow and artifact destinations. But for an 8-parameter, annotation-free, side-effecting tool it leaves most parameter meanings and state-mutation semantics unaddressed.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate; it only clarifies install_cmd and run_cmd as 'single command lines (argv[0] + args)'. The other six parameters (vm, args, label, timeout, app_path, workspace) get no explanation anywhere, leaving most of the input surface undocumented.

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 names a specific composite workflow ('full app-compat cycle') and enumerates its steps (copy app, run install_cmd, run app, capture exit/output, screenshot, PASS/FAIL). That clearly distinguishes it from a single-command sibling like vm_exec. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer when a full cycle is not needed.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow framing (it is the end-to-end compat test) and by the pointer to RULES.md for reference apps. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-vm_exec or when-not-to guidance.

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