qwen-dap-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Build Runtime Debug Report

debug_runtime_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a structured evidence report from a stopped debugger target, with crash fingerprinting, sanitizer stderr, and memory hazard detection, for triage and issue handoff.

Instructions

Create a shareable structured report from the current stopped target with normalized crash fingerprinting, Symbol Doctor status, sanitizer stderr correlation, poison-pattern memory hazard detection, ABI register-to-argument mapping, and recent debugger output. Use it only for evidence-driven triage and issue handoff. Do not treat heuristic poison patterns, ABI mappings, or sanitizer text correlation as standalone proof.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "debug_runtime_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`abi`	No	ABI used to map argument registers; auto infers from debugger registers and host platform when possible.	auto
`sessionId`	No	Optional DAP session ID. Omit to use the backward-compatible default session.
`redactPaths`	No	Replace path-like portions of the report fingerprint frame key with a generic marker.
`includeOutputTail`	No	Include the bounded recent adapter stderr tail used for sanitizer correlation.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`abi`	Yes
`frameKey`	Yes
`snapshot`	Yes
`sanitizer`	Yes
`hypotheses`	Yes
`outputTail`	Yes
`apiAnalysis`	Yes
`fingerprint`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`exceptionKey`	Yes
`symbolDoctor`	Yes
`symbolStatus`	Yes
`memoryHazards`	Yes
`breakpointPlan`	Yes
`fingerprintsV2`	Yes
`stackIntegrity`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.18.1Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires a stopped target, includes normalized crash fingerprinting and Symbol Doctor status, correlates sanitizer stderr, and warns that heuristic outputs are not standalone proof.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, object, and scope, followed by a compact feature list a usage boundary, and a reliability caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a fully documented input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, usage constraints, and heuristic caveats. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters and defaults. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing related report components, matching the baseline for schema-heavy definitions.

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?

States a specific action ('Create a shareable structured report'), a specific resource ('current stopped target'), and enumerates the report components. The detailed list clearly differentiates it from diagnostic siblings like debug_this_crash or debug_causal_trace.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use it only for evidence-driven triage and issue handoff' and a strong boundary about not treating heuristic findings as proof. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it just below a 5.

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

Deploy Server