q-sys-mcp

List components

qsys_list_components

Retrieve named components from a Q-SYS design, with optional filtering by type or name and the ability to exclude properties for quicker results.

Instructions

List named components in the running/emulated design, with type and properties (Component.GetComponents). On large designs use filter/type/names_only to trim the response.

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": "qsys_list_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Case-insensitive substring on component type (e.g. "gain", "mixer")
`filter`	No	Case-insensitive substring; only components whose name contains it are returned
`names_only`	No	Return only name + type per component (drop properties) to save context

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the underlying function (Component.GetComponents) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, disclose permissions requirements, or describe response size limits beyond the filter hint.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains what is returned (components with type and properties) and how to trim responses. It does not cover pagination, but the parameter guidance partially compensates. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general usage tip for the parameters ('use filter/type/names_only'), which does not significantly augment the schema's parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List named components') and the resource ('running/emulated design'), adding details about type and properties. The verb+resource is specific and distinguishes from siblings like qsys_get_component, which targets a single component.

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 description provides implicit guidance ('On large designs use filter/type/names_only'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like qsys_get_component or qsys_status. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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

Deploy Server