Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdbstub-mcp

gdbstub-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

debug_step

Steps through a specified number of machine instructions (1-1000) and reports where execution stopped for QEMU bare-metal debugging.

Instructions

Single-step count machine instructions (1..1000) and show where it stopped.

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_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
countNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
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 discloses the count range and that the tool reports where execution stopped, but it does not state prerequisites such as requiring a paused session, what `name` identifies, or what side effects stepping has on program 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core action, the count constraint, and the observable result efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete for a debugger-control tool: it omits the meaning of the required `name` parameter and does not state operational prerequisites or side effects.

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 compensate. It adds useful meaning for `count` by specifying the 1..1000 range, but the required `name` parameter is left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a required argument.

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: "Single-step `count` machine instructions" and adds the 1..1000 range plus "show where it stopped." It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as debug_continue or debug_break.

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 "single-step" in a debugger context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer it advances execution by instructions, but must rely on sibling names and general debugger knowledge.

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