qa-mcp

get_window_list_testclient

Lists the 1C-internal windows/tabs open in a live TestClient session, returning each caption and frame kind, separate from OS-level window lists.

Instructions

Enumerate the 1C-internal windows/tabs open in the TestClient natively. This is the protocol-level list (the 1C windows the client tracks — main desktop, an open form/list/card tab, a dialog), DISTINCT from get_window_list which lists OS top-level X windows (1C opens forms as MDI tabs inside ONE X window, so the OS list does not see them). Replays the genuine window-list query on a live session (grafted onto a live value-read header so the session GUIDs match — a raw replay is rejected) and decodes each window's caption + frame kind (SecondaryFrame | MainFrame | HomePage). Each window record's caption is the window title (Cyrillic-aware). SCOPE: like read_form_descriptor, each call is a FRESH session, so it lists the windows of the session it opens (the fixture form + desktop + home page); address an individual window with activate_window / close_window. If you only need to prove MCP-to-TestClient connectivity without a form target, run qa_mcp_doctor and inspect its testclient_smoke check. Form-level reads that need a target should pass open_link such as e1cib/list/<metadata>. Returns {count, windows:[{kind, guid, caption}]}. Decoded + validated against a genuine analysis oracle (4 windows).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`host`	No	127.0.0.1
`port`	No
`capture_dir`	No	tm-v1-ro-batchQ3
`manager_templates`	No	/app/src/qa_mcp/_bundled/8.3/templates/value_read_templates.json

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses that each call opens a FRESH session (so it only lists that session's windows), that the raw replay would be rejected and is grafted onto a live value-read header for matching GUIDs, and that output is decoded/validated against an oracle. This is behavioral context beyond any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is dense and overstuffed with packed parentheticals, a SCOPE block, and marginal asides (e.g. 'Decoded + validated against a genuine analysis oracle (4 windows)'). It is informative but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them ({count, windows:[{kind,guid,caption}]}). Behavior and scope are well covered for a no-annotation tool; the gap is undocumented parameters, which are largely plumbing defaults.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (host, port, capture_dir, manager_templates), all undocumented. The description never explains these parameters, so obscure ones like capture_dir and manager_templates remain opaque; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Enumerate the 1C-internal windows/tabs open in the TestClient') and immediately contrasts with the sibling get_window_list, explaining the MDI-tab distinction. An agent can differentiate this from get_window_list without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the agent: use get_window_list for OS-level X windows, activate_window/close_window to address individual windows, qa_mcp_doctor for a connectivity-only smoke check, and open_link for form-level reads needing a target. The SCOPE paragraph states the fresh-session constraint directly.

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

Deploy Server