dbg_statusRetrieve debugger state, process ID, thread list, and current instruction pointer from an IDA Pro session to monitor or diagnose active debugging.
Get debugger status: state, pid, threads, current instruction pointer.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation through 'Get' and lists returned fields, but does not state whether an active debug session is required, what timeout does, whether the call is side-effect free, or how errors are surfaced.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place by naming the action and enumerating the useful status fields.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter nature and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the key returned fields an agent would need to know. It is nearly complete, missing only prerequisite/session behavior and error/format details.
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%, so both parameters (timeout and instance_id) are already fully documented by the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get debugger status') and enumerates the exact status fields returned: state, pid, threads, current instruction pointer. This clearly differentiates it from sibling dbg_* tools such as dbg_regs, dbg_callstack, and dbg_list_bps.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.