Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdbstub-mcp

gdbstub-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

debug_set_register

Write a CPU register value using an address expression such as 0x10 or a symbol to modify program state during debugging.

Instructions

Write a register. value is an address expression (0x10, symbol, ...).

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>",
      "register": "<register>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "debug_set_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
valueYes
registerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the debug target must be paused, whether the write persists or affects the running program, what errors can occur for invalid registers, or what permissions are required for this mutation.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. It is concise and readable, though the structure could more clearly separate parameter guidance from the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, this is a mutation tool with three undocumented required parameters and no annotations. The definition says almost nothing about prerequisites, error behavior, or parameter meanings beyond the value format.

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 clarify all three parameters. It explains only the 'value' parameter as an address expression, leaving the distinct roles of 'name' (likely a session or context identifier) and 'register' unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource ('Write a register'), which is enough to distinguish it from a read-registers sibling like debug_registers. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist for reading or inspecting registers. The only contextual hint is the value format, which addresses how to call it rather than when.

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