Debug C++ source code with GDB by submitting code and an optional GDB script, helping you inspect execution and diagnose program issues.
使用GDB调试C++程序
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | C++源代码 | |
| gdb_script | No | GDB调试脚本（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says debugging happens via GDB but does not explain interactivity, execution environment, permissions, side effects, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps.
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 wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important details to other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of execution behavior, the description is under-informative for a debugging tool. An agent would not know whether debugging is interactive, what environment is used, or what to expect from the two parameters.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage, but it also does not clarify the optional gdb_script usage.
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 clear action and resource: use GDB to debug C++ programs. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, though it does not differentiate this from sibling tools such as compile_and_run.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus compile_and_run or other siblings. The agent must infer the tool's role from its name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.