Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdbstub-mcp

gdbstub-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

debug_memory

Reads guest virtual memory at raw addresses, symbols, source lines, or register offsets, returning hex dumps, symbolized words, or NUL-terminated strings for kernel debugging.

Instructions

Read guest memory (virtual addresses, as the CPU currently sees them).

address accepts 0x1234, symbol, symbol+0x10, file.c:42 or $esp+8. format: "hex" (hexdump with ASCII), "words" (pointer-sized words, symbolized), or "string" (NUL-terminated string at address). length is capped at 4096 bytes.

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>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "debug_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
formatNohex
lengthNo
addressYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral load and does disclose real constraints: the 4096-byte length cap, the three format modes and what each returns, and the crucial fact that addresses are interpreted as virtual addresses from the CPU's present view. What it omits is failure behavior and session prerequisites (connected/stopped target), which matters for a tool that reads live process state.

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?

Three short, front-loaded blocks: purpose first, then address syntax, then format/length constraints. Every sentence supplies information an agent could not get from the structured fields, and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the tricky parts (address grammar, format modes, size cap) well for a four-parameter read tool. The gaps are the undocumented required "name" parameter and the absence of any session-state or error precondition, which are notable given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does a good job on three of four: rich address syntax (0x1234, symbol, symbol+0x10, file.c:42, $esp+8), the format enum values, and the length cap. However the required "name" parameter is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving an agent to guess what it identifies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read guest memory") and immediately narrows scope with "virtual addresses, as the CPU currently sees them", which distinguishes it from a physical-memory read and from the debug_write_memory sibling. An agent knows exactly what class of operation this is without opening the schema.

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 implied by the purpose but never stated: nothing says a session must be connected or the target paused, and there is no explicit routing to alternatives such as debug_disassemble or debug_registers for related reads. The parenthetical about CPU-visible addresses hints at a boundary but does not set out when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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