qnx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Stop a QNX target

target_stop

DestructiveIdempotent

Power off a QNX QEMU target after waiting for active runs to release their shared lock, then terminate the verified QEMU process; target disk files persist while background runs are lost.

Instructions

Power off the target's QEMU (mkqnximage --stop, then SIGTERM/SIGKILL through a pidfd of the verified QEMU process). Waits for runs in progress (they hold a shared lock). Background runs are lost; files on the target disk persist.

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": "target_stop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Target name such as 'tb' (lowercase letters, digits, '-', '_'); must be inside the server allowlist

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mechanism (mkqnximage --stop, then SIGTERM/SIGKILL via pidfd), that it blocks while runs hold a shared lock, and precisely what is lost (background runs) versus what survives (files on the target disk). This is exactly the destruction-boundary detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by blocking behavior and data-loss consequences. The mention of the specific binary flags and pidfd mechanics is slightly implementation-heavy for an agent-facing description but still compact.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive mutation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the blocking semantics and the persistence/loss split. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the target is not running or how failures surface, but nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the naming pattern and the serveur allowlist constraint. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries all semantic weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Power off the target's QEMU', which is clearly narrower than target_destroy or process_stop. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

The use case is implied by the purpose (stop the target's VM), and the note that runs are waited on hints at when this blocks. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over target_destroy or process_stop, and no stated preconditions such as the target needing to exist or be running.

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