Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdbstub-mcp

gdbstub-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

debug_delete

Remove a breakpoint or watchpoint by its numeric ID to manage active debugging sessions for bare-metal QEMU kernels.

Instructions

Remove a breakpoint/watchpoint by its # id.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "debug_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the removal is destructive and keyed to a '# id', but says nothing about whether an active session is required, whether removal is reversible, what happens if the id is invalid, or what a successful response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the lookup key front-loaded; there is no padding. It may be over-terse given the undocumented second parameter, but every word present is useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core action is conveyed. However, the unexplained required 'name' parameter and the missing session/prerequisite context leave real gaps for a deletion tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It adds a little meaning for 'id' by framing it as a '#' identifier, hinting at a list-derived index, but the required 'name' parameter is never mentioned or explained anywhere in the definition.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Remove') and resource ('breakpoint/watchpoint'), plus the mechanism ('by its # id'), which implicitly separates it from debug_break and debug_breakpoints. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the resulting state, but an agent can identify the operation from it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the counterpart to debug_break and that a breakpoint must already exist, which is implied but never stated.

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