Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdb-mcp

gdb-mcp

by Mistyovo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

manage_breakpoint

Modify a breakpoint by its number: enable, disable, or delete it.

Instructions

Delete / enable / disable a breakpoint by number.

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": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_breakpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
numberYes
session_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately discloses that this is a mutating operation (delete/enable/disable), but it does not cover likely failure modes (invalid number), whether actions require an active session, or what the tool returns. No contradiction exists since there are no annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to understanding the operation and addressing scheme.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional session_id, this is somewhat sparse. It covers the core operation but omits prerequisites (breakpoint must exist), session behavior, and result/error semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It clarifies that number identifies a breakpoint and gives the three action values, but it leaves session_id entirely undocumented and does not specify exact string casing for action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs (Delete / enable / disable) and a precise resource ('a breakpoint by number'). This clearly differentiates manage_breakpoint from list_breakpoints (listing) and set_breakpoint (creating).

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?

The description implies that the tool is for operating on existing breakpoints identified by number, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over a sibling like set_breakpoint or how to obtain the number (e.g., list_breakpoints). The usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools