MobAI MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

debug_breakpoint

Add breakpoints to active debug sessions by specifying file, method, or symbol. Remove breakpoints by providing their ID.

Instructions

Add or remove a breakpoint in the active debug session. For action=add provide spec; for action=remove provide id.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "debug_breakpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device_id`	Yes	Device ID
`action`	Yes	"add" or "remove"
`spec`	No	Breakpoint spec for action=add. "File.swift:42", "Module.Type.method", "-[Class method:]", or runtime symbol.
`id`	No	Breakpoint id for action=remove.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.1Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for an active debug session and the conditional parameters, but omits details like side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what happens to existing breakpoints.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional logic is explained efficiently.

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?

The description covers the essential conditional parameters for a 4-param tool, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., active session required), error conditions, and return value information, leaving gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the conditional requirements for 'spec' and 'id' based on action, and provides examples for the spec format.

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 clearly states the verb ('Add or remove') and the resource ('a breakpoint'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'in the active debug session' and the conditional action parameter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use action=add vs remove based on parameter needs, but it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_state or debug_step, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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