QNX Host MCP

qnx_image_start

Starts an owned QNX image only after verifying process ownership and loopback-only networking; returns UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION otherwise. Launcher success does not confirm guest readiness.

Instructions

Start an owned image only after process ownership and loopback-only networking have been verified. Otherwise returns UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION. Launcher success does not establish guest readiness. Deadline: 60 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_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode (UNSAFE_CONFIGURATION), the 60-second deadline, and the important caveat that launcher success does not establish guest readiness. It stops short of stating idempotency, whether an already-running image is affected, or how readiness should subsequently be confirmed.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (precondition, failure code, caveat, deadline), with the precondition front-loaded. No filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated launcher, the description covers the essential operator-facing facts: precondition, error signal, timeout, and a misleading-success warning. It would be complete at 5 if it pointed at how to verify guest readiness afterward (e.g. 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Start an owned image') plus the verification precondition, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qnx_image_build and qnx_image_stop. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred 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 precondition ('only after process ownership and loopback-only networking have been verified') gives a clear condition for legitimate use, but the description never names the alternative tools or states when not to use this one, leaving routing between start/build/stop implied.

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

Deploy Server