Halt the target to read its registers via SEGGER J-Link, returning the probe name and a compact register summary. Target remains halted; call resume when done.
Halt the target and read its registers via SEGGER J-Link. Returns the probe name and a compact register summary. Leaves the target HALTED — call resume when you are done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it explicitly states that the target is left HALTED and instructs the agent to call resume when done. It also clarifies that this is a J-Link operation and describes the return content, so there is no hidden state change.
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?
Three short sentences each earn their place: the action, the return value, and the critical halted-state warning. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition.
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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, the return value, and the postcondition. It is slightly incomplete because it omits prerequisites such as requiring an active debug session or connected J-Link probe, and it does not detail the register summary format, but these are secondary for invocation.
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?
The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the 0-parameter baseline applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 clearly states a specific action: halt the target and read its registers via SEGGER J-Link, and names the expected outputs (probe name and register summary). It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling halt/read_registers tools, though the compound behavior and probe-name output make it reasonably distinct.
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 description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as read_registers, read_register, or halt. The only operational instruction is the postcondition to call resume, which is useful after invocation but does not help the agent select a tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.