Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windows98-mcp

windows98-mcp

by ido-pluto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

qemu_qmp_execute

Send advanced QMP commands to a managed Windows 98 VM's local QEMU endpoint for direct state inspection and control.

Instructions

Run an advanced QMP command against a managed VM's local broker-owned QMP endpoint.

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_qmp_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vm_idYes
commandYes
argumentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply the fact that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not marked destructive, but the description adds little behavioral detail beyond that. It does not state whether the VM must already be selected/managed, what side effects arbitrary QMP commands may have, or what the response contains; 'broker-owned endpoint' is unexplained.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant phrases, and the execution verb is front-loaded. However, 'advanced' and 'broker-owned' add jargon without clarity, so it is not a perfect concise description.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description needs to explain return behavior, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools; it does none of these. A tool that can run arbitrary QMP commands is high-risk and needs more context than this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the parameters. An agent gets no help understanding the expected QMP command format, how to pass arguments, or how vm_id relates to the managed VM.

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?

Identifies a specific action ('Run') against a precise resource ('QMP endpoint of a managed VM'), and the QMP/HMP distinction separates it from qemu_hmp_command. However, the qualifier 'advanced' is vague and no sibling is named, so it does not fully disambiguate from overly similar QMP-related tools.

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 given on when to use this tool rather than qemu_hmp_command, qemu_vm_command_preview, or qemu_doctor. The only hint is the word 'advanced,' which does not establish selection criteria or exclusions.

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