Connect to and initialize an existing Dolphin DAP server to control and inspect a running Dolphin emulator through the Debug Adapter Protocol.
Connect and initialize an existing Dolphin DAP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | 127.0.0.1 | |
| port | No | ||
| lifecycle | No | attach | |
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| socketPath | No | ||
| stopOnEntry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it connects and initializes, but does not describe prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), side effects, timeout behavior, lifecycle semantics, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a connection tool.
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 filler, and every word contributes. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a structural flaw in itself.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters at 0% description coverage, the one-sentence description is far from complete. It omits parameter guidance, behavioral details, and return information, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (host, port, lifecycle, timeoutMs, socketPath, stopOnEntry). No parameter meaning is added beyond what the bare schema provides, leaving an agent without guidance on how to configure the connection.
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 ('Connect and initialize') and resource ('Dolphin DAP server'), and the word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dolphin_start (which presumably creates a new server). It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of 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 phrase 'existing Dolphin DAP server' implies a usage context (use when the server is already running), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative like dolphin_start. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.