Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdbstub-mcp

gdbstub-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

debug_disconnect

Remove breakpoints and detach from the debugging stub so the guest keeps running, halting a running target first and clearing the session.

Instructions

Remove breakpoints, detach from the stub so the guest keeps running, and forget the session. A running target is halted first.

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>"
    },
    "name": "debug_disconnect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that breakpoints are removed, that the session state is discarded, and that a running target is halted first — a meaningful side effect an agent would not otherwise predict. It omits failure behavior and permission/auth requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the destructive effects are listed up front with the halt caveat placed where it matters. Every clause carries information.

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 behavioral side effects are covered well. The remaining gap is the identity of the required 'name' argument, which for a single-parameter tool is a noticeable omission.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'name', and the description never explains that 'name' identifies the session to disconnect. It refers only to 'the session', leaving the parameter's meaning entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 precise teardown action with three concrete effects (remove breakpoints, detach from the stub, forget the session), which an agent can clearly separate from connect/step/continue siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is the natural end-of-session teardown, and 'detach ... so the guest keeps running' hints at when it is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison to debug_connect or debug_sessions.

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