Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QNX Host MCP

QNX Host MCP

by martinPisacreta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

qnx_image_build

Builds a fixed QEMU x86_64 image only after verifying host isolation and persisted image configuration; returns UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION otherwise.

Instructions

Build a fixed QEMU x86_64 image only after host isolation and persisted image configuration have been verified. Otherwise returns UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION. Deadline: 900 seconds.

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": "qnx_image_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the prerequisite check, the UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION failure return, and a 900-second deadline, but does not describe side effects, success output, idempotency, or timeout behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact, with every sentence carrying useful information: build action, precondition, failure code, and deadline. There is no redundant wording.

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?

It covers prerequisites, failure signaling, and timeout, which are important for this build operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify the success return or whether an operation ID is produced for use with qnx_operation_status.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain inputs.

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 verb and resource: build a fixed QEMU x86_64 image. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as qnx_image_start or qnx_compile_c.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for use: host isolation and persisted image configuration must be verified first. It also says what happens otherwise (UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION), though it does not name alternative tools or workflows.

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