qnx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List QNX targets

target_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists QEMU QNX targets this server can manage and reports running or stopped state from the QEMU pid. Call first to discover target names.

Instructions

List the QEMU QNX targets this server may manage (directories under the targets dir that match the allowlist), with state running/stopped from the QEMU pid. Cheap, no SSH. Call first to discover target names.

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": "target_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is 'cheap, no SSH', it only reports allowlisted directories, and the running/stopped state is derived from the QEMU pid rather than a live probe — all useful for an agent deciding how freely to call it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences: the first defines scope and semantics, the second gives the routing instruction. The cost/no-SSH note is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers scope, state derivation, cost, and workflow position — everything needed to call a zero-argument discovery tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description does not waste space restating schema content, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the QEMU QNX targets') and defines the exact scope: directories under the targets dir that match the allowlist, enriched with running/stopped state from the QEMU pid. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like target_status, which operates on a single target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Call first to discover target names' gives explicit ordering guidance that ties this tool to the rest of the workflow. It does not name a competing sibling or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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