dbg_regsRead all debugger registers in an active IDA Pro debug session. Use to inspect CPU state during reverse engineering.
Get all debugger registers (requires active debugger).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that an active debugger is required; it does not describe return format, error behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the key prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves return-value semantics unstated. It provides the essential precondition but stops short of a complete operational picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both optional parameters are documented in the schema as 'Timeout in seconds' and 'Instance id override.' The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all debugger registers.' However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool dbg_thread_regs, which likely retrieves thread-specific registers. A clearer scope boundary would be needed for a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'requires active debugger' gives a necessary precondition, which provides some usage context. It does not, however, state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as dbg_thread_regs or dbg_status, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.