Starts Dolphin with an ELF, optional disc and source roots, then connects its DAP server for debugging.
Start Dolphin with an ELF, optional disc and source roots, then connect its DAP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elf | Yes | ||
| disc | No | ||
| port | No | ||
| headless | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| executable | Yes | ||
| sourcePaths | 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that a process is launched and a DAP server connected, but says nothing about blocking behavior, whether an existing session is replaced, the meaning of headless/timeoutMs, or failure modes for an 8-parameter process-launching 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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and primary resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why so much parameter and behavioral context is missing.
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 launch tool requiring two mandatory paths plus six optional settings, with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine required vs optional inputs, defaults, or what a successful launch returns.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only accounts for three (elf, disc, sourcePaths) and leaves executable, port, headless, timeoutMs, and stopOnEntry entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their semantics and defaults.
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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Start Dolphin'), lists the key inputs (ELF, optional disc, source roots), and states the side effect of connecting the DAP server. This distinguishes it from the sibling dolphin_connect, though it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer one over the other.
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?
Usage is only implied: launching Dolphin includes connecting its DAP server, so the agent can infer this is a setup/launch step. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus dolphin_connect, nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g., what to do if a session is already running).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.