mcp-netcoredbg
Server Quality Checklist
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v2.0.0
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
- This server provides 25 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, there is no mention of output format, performance characteristics, or whether this blocks execution. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (5 words) with no redundant language. However, it is excessively terse to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness. It is front-loaded but content-deficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugging tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the relationship between threadId/sessionId and 'current', the format of returned stack frames, or how 'depth' truncation behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (threadId, depth, sessionId) having descriptions. The description mentions 'current call stack' which loosely maps to thread/session concepts, but adds no syntax or semantic details beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current call stack' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'stack_trace' as a verb phrase. It fails to distinguish from sibling inspection tools like 'scopes', 'variables', or 'threads' that also retrieve debugging state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugging session) or when to prefer this over 'threads' or 'scopes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It does not state that paused execution can be resumed, what happens to threads, whether this is synchronous, or any side effects of pausing a running program.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The three-word description is maximally concise with no wasted language. However, it is arguably undersized for the complexity of the operation, lacking the structural depth to guide usage effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control tool affecting program execution and threading, the description is insufficient. It lacks mention of the debug session context, thread handling behavior, relationship to the 'continue' workflow, and any output implications despite having no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('threadId' and 'sessionId'), establishing the baseline. The description adds no parameter context, but given the complete schema documentation, no additional compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Pause') and resource ('program execution'), establishing basic function within the debugger context implied by sibling tools. However, it fails to distinguish from 'terminate' (which ends execution permanently) or clarify that this is a temporary halt resumable via 'continue'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'terminate' or 'set_breakpoint'. The description offers no conditions, prerequisites (e.g., requires active debug session), or workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not state that execution resumes until the function returns, where it pauses afterward, or whether this works on the top frame. Missing critical safety/behavioral context for a debugging operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at six words. While not wasted, it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The phrase 'Step out' largely restates the tool name (step_out), earning minimal additional information per word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of execution flow changes, pause behavior upon completion, or error conditions (e.g., if already at top frame). Given the rich sibling tool context, more behavioral detail is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage (threadId, sessionId documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies the 'current function' context which loosely maps to the threadId/sessionId parameters, but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (step out) and scope (current function), which clarifies the verb and target resource. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling stepping commands (step_into, step_over), leaving ambiguity about when 'out' applies versus 'over' or 'into'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (step_into, step_over, continue). It mentions 'current function' implying paused execution context, but does not explicitly state prerequisites like requiring an active debug session or paused thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention critical traits: whether evaluation can cause side effects or mutate state, what happens on expression errors (exceptions/syntax errors), or the format of return values. 'Debug context' implies session dependency but doesn't specify behavior when no session exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence. While efficiently worded without redundancy, it is arguably too minimal given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema—leaving significant behavioral gaps that conciseness cannot compensate for.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugging tool that executes arbitrary expressions (potentially with side effects), the description lacks essential context: output format, error handling behavior, side effect warnings, and interaction with the debug target's state. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose what evaluation returns and its safety profile.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with helpful cross-references (frameId references 'stack_trace', sessionId references 'list_sessions'). The main description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('expression') with context ('current debug context'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'variables' (which retrieves state) or 'invoke' (which calls functions), leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes an 'evaluation' from other debug operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'evaluate' versus 'variables' for inspecting state, or whether 'evaluate' is preferred over 'invoke' for function calls. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether termination is graceful or forced, irreversible, or what happens to associated resources (breakpoints, watch expressions). For a destructive operation, this lack of safety context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 5 words with no filler. However, it prioritizes brevity over utility—additional context distinguishing it from siblings or explaining side effects would justify a longer description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of the ambiguous sibling 'terminate' and the destructive nature of the operation, the description is insufficient. It should clarify the distinction from 'terminate' and disclose behavioral traits (cleanup, irreversibility) that the schema cannot convey.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage ('Session ID to terminate'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format of sessionId, where to obtain it), but none is required given the schema clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Terminate') and resource ('debug session'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'terminate', which creates ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'terminate' tool, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the session must be active). The word 'specific' implies targeting by ID, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, error behavior for invalid references, or whether this triggers any side effects in the debug session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and appropriately sized for a simple getter tool. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, the brevity leaves critical workflow context undocumented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As part of a debugger toolset, the description fails to explain the relationship to the 'scopes' tool (required to obtain the variablesReference) or what the return structure looks like. Relies entirely on schema for parameter docs but provides no guidance for the return values or error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds the phrase 'variable container' which loosely maps to 'parent variable' in the schema, but does not add significant semantic detail or usage examples beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('variables') with contextual narrowing ('from a scope or variable container'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'scopes' or clarify the debugging workflow context implied by the server toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., that 'variablesReference' must be obtained from 'scopes' or parent variables first). The schema parameter description mentions the source, but the main description lacks workflow guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. While it mentions breakpoint support, it omits critical execution details: return value handling, exception behavior, blocking vs async execution, process isolation, and side effect risks. For an arbitrary code execution tool, these omissions are significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no redundant text. Front-loads the core action, follows with capability notes. Slightly too terse given the tool's complexity and safety implications—could accommodate one sentence on return behavior without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
High complexity tool (8 parameters, arbitrary code execution, integration with rich debugging ecosystem) with no output schema and no annotations. Description fails to address the invocation lifecycle, session management (despite sessionId parameter), or how it integrates with sibling debugging workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds context for 'debug' parameter linking it to breakpoint capability, but does not elaborate on 'args' vs 'ctorArgs' distinction, 'sessionId' usage patterns, or expected formats beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-resource combination ('Invoke a specific method in a .NET assembly'). Mentions debug capability which contextualizes it within the debugging tool family. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'evaluate' (expression evaluation) or 'launch' (program startup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides conditional guidance for the debug parameter ('Use debug mode to set breakpoints'), but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use relative to sibling execution tools. Does not clarify if this requires an active debug session or operates standalone despite the presence of 'sessionId' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. States the tool lists breakpoints but fails to clarify what 'active' means, what data structure is returned, pagination behavior, or error conditions (e.g., no session attached).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient at 4 words with zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose: action (List), scope (all), filter (active), target (breakpoints).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter list operation with complete schema coverage, but lacks output format details and behavioral context that would help interpret results. Minimum viable for tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with sessionId fully documented (including default behavior and cross-reference to list_sessions). Main description adds no parameter details, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (List) and resource (breakpoints) with scope qualifier (active). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like set_breakpoint and remove_breakpoint through the 'list' action, though it does not explicitly mention debugging context or contrast with breakpoint management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when debugging vs. inspecting state). The only workflow hint appears in the parameter schema referencing list_sessions, not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While it notes the output source (stdout/stderr), it fails to clarify critical behaviors: whether reading consumes/clears the buffer, whether the call blocks until output is available, or the format of returned data. 'Recent' implies temporal limits but doesn't define the buffer size or retention policy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of six words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no redundant or filler text. For a simple retrieval tool, this length is appropriate and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core resource (stdout/stderr) but could be improved by explicitly stating this reads from the target program's console output in a debug session, especially given the rich sibling tool context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'lines' and 'sessionId' fully documented in the schema (including the helpful cross-reference to list_sessions). The description field itself makes no mention of parameters, but given the complete schema coverage, it does not need to compensate. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'recent program output' and specifically identifies the source as 'stdout/stderr'. However, it does not explicitly contextualize that this applies to a debug session (implied only by the sessionId parameter schema), nor does it distinguish from the 'evaluate' sibling which might also return text output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evaluate' or 'variables'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active session with a launched program) or whether this should be polled continuously versus called on-demand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the action but omits error handling (what happens if breakpoint doesn't exist), idempotency, side effects on execution, or whether the target session must be paused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of seven words with action-oriented front-loading. Every word is essential; no redundancy or noise. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complete schema documentation (100% coverage) and the tool's narrow scope, the description is minimally sufficient. However, for a debugging mutation operation, it lacks behavioral context (error modes, safety) that would help an agent handle edge cases gracefully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'specific line' which loosely maps to the line parameter, but adds no syntax details, validation rules, or semantic relationships between file/line/sessionId beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses specific verb 'Remove' with resource 'breakpoint' and scope 'from a specific line', clearly identifying the operation. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling 'set_breakpoint' or explanation of the file+line composite key for breakpoint identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., modifying vs. removing), prerequisites (breakpoint must exist), or session state requirements. The description states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical traits: whether the breakpoint persists across sessions, what happens when the breakpoint is hit (execution pause), error conditions (invalid line numbers), or what the tool returns (breakpoint ID confirmation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is overly terse—one additional sentence covering behavioral traits or prerequisites would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits operational context such as error handling, side effects on program execution, and integration with the broader debugging workflow (session management).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'specific line in a source file' which aligns with the file and line parameters, but adds no semantic details beyond the schema regarding the condition expression syntax or session selection logic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (Set) and resource (breakpoint) with precise scoping (at a specific line in a source file). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like remove_breakpoint, list_breakpoints, and execution control tools (continue, step_into).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active debug session (attach/launch first) or suggest checking existing breakpoints with list_breakpoints before setting duplicates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks crucial behavioral details: output format (thread IDs, names, states?), whether the process must be paused, error conditions if no process attached, or whether all threads or only active ones are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient at 7 words. Front-loaded with verb 'List'. No redundant text. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, but leaves gaps given no output schema. Missing description of return value structure (thread objects vs simple IDs) which would help the agent utilize results effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with sessionId fully documented including default behavior. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema completeness, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('threads') with scope ('in the debugged process'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'stack_trace' (which requires a thread ID, presumably obtained from this tool) or clarify when to use this versus other inspection tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stack_trace' or 'scopes'. Does not mention that an active debugging session is required (implied only by 'debugged process' and the sessionId parameter description).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description explains the core navigation action (entering the function call). However, it omits important behavioral details: that execution advances and pauses at the first line of the callee, what happens if no function call exists on the current line, and whether this modifies 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence of seven words with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the action verb. The brevity is appropriate for standard debugger commands, though the absolute minimalism contributes to missing contextual prerequisites.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers the basic debugger action but misses important context: execution state requirements (must be paused), relationship to other step commands in the sibling list, and error behavior. Adequate but clearly incomplete for a control-flow tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both threadId and sessionId. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., when to explicitly specify sessionId versus accepting the default), meeting the baseline expectation when the schema already documents fields adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses specific debugger terminology ('step into') combined with target resource ('function call on the current line'), clearly indicating it enters the callee rather than stepping over or out. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings step_out and step_over through standard semantics, though it could explicitly clarify this is a debugger execution control action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like step_over or step_out. Critically omits prerequisites such as requiring the debugger to be in a paused state before invocation, which is essential for correct usage among the sibling debugging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it states the program restarts, it fails to clarify critical behavioral traits: whether the current process is terminated (destructive), whether debugger state/breakpoints persist, or what happens if no session is active. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the action; the second states the primary use case. Every word earns its place without redundant explanation of parameters already covered in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, 100% schema coverage), the description adequately covers selection criteria. However, it omits prerequisites (requires active session) and error conditions (what if restart fails), which would be expected for a complete debugging tool description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'rebuild' and 'sessionId' are documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema—it implies the 'rebuild' use case via 'after code changes' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or session selection logic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('debugged program') and distinguishes itself from 'launch' by specifying 'same launch settings.' However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'terminate' or clarify session vs. process lifecycle, stopping short of perfect differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a 'when-to-use' hint ('Useful after code changes') that maps to the 'rebuild' parameter. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or comparison with alternatives like 'terminate' or 'launch', leaving ambiguity about whether to restart or terminate+launch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose the return format (scope IDs vs objects), error conditions, or required debugger state (e.g., must be paused).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient six-word sentence with zero redundancy. It is immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% schema coverage and simple 2-parameter structure, the description is minimally viable. However, without an output schema, it omits what the tool returns (scope identifiers) and fails to mention the relationship to the 'variables' tool, which likely requires these scopes as input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters comprehensively documented ('Stack frame ID (from stack_trace)' and 'Session ID (defaults to current session)...'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('variable scopes') and context ('for a stack frame'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'variables' tool, which likely consumes the output of this tool, preventing a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description string lacks explicit when-to-use guidance. However, the schema description for 'frameId' references 'stack_trace', implying a prerequisite workflow step. No alternatives or explicit prerequisites are stated in the main description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing example status values ('running, stopped, etc.'), hinting at possible return states. However, it fails to clarify if this is read-only, if it requires an active debug session, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately qualifies the resource and expected value range. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The status examples partially compensate for the missing output schema, but the lack of annotations means critical behavioral context (read-only nature, session requirements) is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a complete baseline. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already adequately documents the optional 'sessionId' parameter including default behavior and cross-reference to 'list_sessions'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('debugger status'), and the parenthetical examples '(running, stopped, etc.)' clarify the domain. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling query tools like 'list_sessions' or 'threads'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. proceeding directly with 'pause' or 'continue'). The schema mentions 'list_sessions' for parameter values, but this is not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies finality via 'terminate' but does not explicitly state whether this is a forceful kill, whether cleanup occurs, or if the session remains available for inspection after termination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verbs. No redundant words or filler content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it lacks important context regarding the distinction from 'terminate_session' and the irreversible nature of terminating a debugged program.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional sessionId parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops the debug session and terminates the debugged program using specific verbs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'terminate_session' tool, which could cause confusion about which termination tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'terminate_session' or 'detach'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., active session required) or post-conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it starts debugging but omits behavioral details: whether it spawns a new OS process, whether it blocks until termination, what happens if symbols are missing, or that it establishes a persistent debug session (implied by sessionId parameter but not confirmed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. First establishes purpose, second adds the debug symbols constraint. Appropriately compact given the rich, self-documenting schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for initiation but minimal given complexity. No output schema exists, yet description doesn't clarify the resulting debug session state (paused vs running) or side effects (process creation). Covers the essential pre-condition (debug symbols).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantic constraint that the DLL must be 'built with debug symbols'—critical information for successful debugging not present in the schema's generic 'Path to the .NET DLL to debug'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Start debugging') and resource ('.NET application'), and specifies the DLL requirement. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'attach' (connect to existing process) or 'launch_watch' (file watching), which is important given the debug context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use 'launch' versus 'attach' (which connects to an already-running process) or other initiation methods. No mention of prerequisites like requiring a debuggable build configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and scopes the output to 'active' sessions with status details, but lacks disclosure on side effects, caching behavior, or whether this includes terminated sessions in a grace period.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and scope, delivering maximum information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While adequate for a parameter-less tool, the absence of an output schema means the description should do more to characterize the return structure (e.g., array format, session ID fields). It also omits clarification on what constitutes 'active' versus 'terminated' in the context of sibling tools like 'terminate_session'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per evaluation rules. The schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, requiring no additional parameter semantics from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active debug sessions') and includes the detail 'with their status'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'status' tool, which may also return session state information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'select_session' or 'status', nor does it indicate whether this should be called before attaching to a session or after launching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Attach debugger' describes the action but omits critical behavioral context: whether the process pauses/breaks on attach, timeout behavior, permissions required, or failure modes for protected processes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 7 words. Verb-fronted structure. Every word earns its place—zero redundancy while conveying specific domain (.NET) and action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema documentation. However, lacking annotations, output schema, and behavioral details (attach side effects), description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for safe operation of process manipulation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds '.NET' domain context not present in schema, but provides no additional syntax guidance, validation rules, or parameter relationship details beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Attach') + specific resource ('debugger', 'running .NET process'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'launch' (which creates new processes) by specifying 'running' and '.NET process'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through 'running process' (vs launch), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to 'launch' sibling. Agent must infer when to prefer attach over launch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the persistence aspect (applies to subsequent commands) but omits other behavioral details like whether the setting persists across connections, if it's reversible, or whether it affects concurrent users. It meets minimum disclosure for stateful behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly 7 words with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Set' and every word contributes essential meaning about the operation and its scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, given the complex debugging context implied by 20+ sibling tools, it could benefit from noting that this eliminates the need to pass sessionId to other commands.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the sessionId parameter fully documented. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the purpose of setting the session (making it default for subsequent commands), which helps the agent understand why to use this parameter, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a default session and specifies the scope ('for subsequent commands'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_sessions (which only lists) and terminate_session (which ends sessions). However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the distinction from session-creating tools like launch or attach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for subsequent commands' implies when the effect takes place, suggesting it should be used before other operations requiring a session context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus creating a new session, and doesn't mention that it requires a valid sessionId from list_sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral trait: debugger automatically reconnects after code changes. However, omits session lifecycle management (that this creates a persistent session requiring 'stop_watch' or resource cleanup), error handling behavior, or side effects on the system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. First establishes the action and technology, second explains the critical auto-reconnect behavior. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 well-documented parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description adequately explains the core watch-and-reload behavior. However, it could improve by mentioning session persistence implications (given 'stop_watch' and 'terminate_session' siblings exist) or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. Description mentions 'dotnet watch' and 'hot reload' which provide context for understanding the 'args' and 'noHotReload' parameters, but doesn't add specific syntax guidance, validation rules, or parameter interaction details beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Start debugging') and specific resource ('dotnet watch'). Mentioning 'hot reload support' implicitly distinguishes from the generic 'launch' sibling and 'attach', but doesn't explicitly state the distinction or when to prefer this over standard launch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context through 'hot reload support' and auto-reconnect behavior, suggesting this is for iterative development workflows. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance (e.g., when to use 'launch' instead) and doesn't mention prerequisite setup requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (runs freely until breakpoint or termination) but omits state prerequisites (requires paused program), completion behavior, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resource, and the terminal conditions are all essential information front-loaded efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and standard debugger semantics, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap: does not explicitly state the prerequisite that the program must be in a paused state to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting both threadId and sessionId defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Continue'), resource ('program execution'), and precise behavioral scope ('until next breakpoint or program end'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling stepping tools (step_into, step_over) which stop at line boundaries rather than running freely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'until next breakpoint,' suggesting when execution stops, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use when resuming from a paused state') or explicit contrasts with alternatives like step_into or pause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('terminate') and specific mode being stopped ('hot reload'), but omits side effects, error conditions (e.g., if no watch is running), or state changes to the debug session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence with no filler words. Critical information ('hot reload', 'dotnet watch', 'terminate') is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, simple action), the description adequately covers the tool's function. It could be improved by noting the default session behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the optional sessionId parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but given the high schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation without penalty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Stop', 'terminate') with a specific resource ('dotnet watch process') and uniquely identifies the scope ('hot reload debugging mode'), clearly distinguishing it from generic terminate operations available in siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the specificity of 'hot reload debugging mode' implies the context for use, there is no explicit guidance contrasting this tool with siblings like 'terminate' or 'terminate_session', nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that launch_watch should have been called first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the current line executes, but doesn't disclose what happens next (advance to next line, pause behavior), side effects on debugger state, or error conditions if the thread is not paused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of 12 words. The core action is front-loaded, with the behavioral clarification in parentheses. No wasted words or redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral concept. However, given the lack of annotations, it should ideally explain execution flow (where execution pauses next) or prerequisites (requires paused thread).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the schema (threadId and sessionId with defaults/references). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('step over') and resource ('current line') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'step_into' via the parenthetical '(without stepping into functions)'. This clearly defines the scope and differentiates it from other step operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it doesn't explicitly name 'step_into', the phrase 'without stepping into functions' provides clear implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus stepping into functions. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance or mention of alternatives like 'step_out' or 'continue'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Latest Blog Posts
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AerialByte/mcp-netcoredbg'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server