dbg_step_overAdvance execution past the current instruction without stepping into calls, allowing reverse engineering analysis to continue in an IDA Pro debugging session.
Step over instruction.
| 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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the debug session must be active and paused, that the target's code will actually execute (a potential side effect), or what state the tool returns the target in. The standard meaning of 'step over' conveys only minimal implicit semantics.
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 three-word sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the brevity leaves the agent without necessary context.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an operation that executes target code, the description is not complete enough: prerequisites (session state), side effects, and outcome are all absent. The only compensating factor is the 100% schema coverage on the two optional parameters.
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% for both optional parameters (timeout, instance_id), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific debugger operation (step over) on an implicit resource (the current instruction), which is a meaningful verb+resource pair and standard debugger terminology that implicitly separates it from dbg_step_into. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with the sibling dbg_step_into/dbg_continue, so an agent must rely on prior knowledge of 'step over' semantics.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus dbg_step_into, dbg_continue, or dbg_run_to, and no stated precondition such as a running/halted target. The agent gets no context beyond the three-word description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.