esp-runtime-mcp

decode_addresses

Convert hex code addresses from ESP-IDF backtraces into function names, file:line locations, and inline frames using addr2line for firmware crash analysis.

Instructions

Symbolise code addresses (function, file:line, inlining) with the toolchain's addr2line. For a 'Backtrace: PC:SP PC:SP' line only the PCs are decoded.

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": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "decode_addresses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`elf`	No
`addresses`	Yes	Any text containing hex addresses, e.g. a 'Backtrace:' line
`project_dir`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It does well to disclose the underlying mechanism (the toolchain's addr2line) and the output shape (function, file:line, inlining), plus the special parsing rule for PC:SP pairs. It says nothing, however, about what happens if symbols are missing, which binary is used by default, or whether failure is silent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding the PC:SP parsing rule, though the phrase 'with the toolchain's addr2line' is slightly awkward.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description leaves the critical question unanswered: how the agent should supply the binary/symbol context via 'elf' or 'project_dir'. An agent can form the input but cannot reliably expect successful symbolisation from this description alone.

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 only 33%: only 'addresses' is documented, and the description merely restates that hex addresses are accepted. The two optional parameters, 'elf' and 'project_dir', are undefined in both schema and description — yet they presumably determine whether symbolisation resolves correctly at all, which is a material gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: symbolising code addresses into function, file:line and inlining information via addr2line. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like analyze_log or read_coredump, though it never explicitly states the relationship to coredump analysis, which is the most likely neighbouring use case.

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 only implied: the second sentence tells you that a 'Backtrace: PC:SP' line is acceptable input, which hints at the primary scenario (decoding a crash backtrace). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer read_coredump or analyze_log, and no prerequisites such as needing a matching ELF binary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server