Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windows98-mcp

windows98-mcp

by ido-pluto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

qemu_hmp_command

Execute HMP commands on a Windows 98 VM via QMP to manage devices, inspect system state, and debug boot issues.

Instructions

Run an advanced HMP command through QMP human-monitor-command.

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_id": "<vm_id>",
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "qemu_hmp_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vm_idYes
commandYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations are all non-informative defaults ('readOnlyHint': false, 'destructiveHint': false, 'idempotentHint': false), so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Run' and adds no detail about side effects, output format, error behavior, or risks of executing arbitrary HMP commands.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, though the terseness contributes to the lack of operational guidance.

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?

For a free-form command execution tool with no output schema and no meaningful annotations, this description is too thin. It leaves unresolved the key questions of what output to expect, what VM context applies, and how this differs from qemu_qmp_execute.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters, but it only hints that 'command' uses HMP syntax. It does not explain vm_id, command constraints, output, or interaction between the two parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Run') and a resource ('HMP command through QMP human-monitor-command'), making the core function clear. The word 'advanced' is somewhat vague, but the primary purpose is still identifiable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qemu_qmp_execute or qemu_vm_command_preview. It also does not mention prerequisites like a running VM or the difference between HMP and QMP command paths.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools