Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperDev

SuperDev

by Xsxdot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

Debug stack trace

debug_stack_trace
Read-only

Retrieve stack frames from a deployment debug runtime for a specified thread. Identify the current call stack to diagnose issues in live processes.

Instructions

Low-level DAP escape hatch: read stack frames from a deployment debug runtime.

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": {
      "deployment_id": "<deployment_id>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "debug_stack_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thread_idYes
deployment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds 'low-level DAP escape hatch' to indicate raw access, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether an active debug session is required or whether it returns raw DAP data. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and context. Every word adds value, with no filler that would dilute the message.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema and zero param descriptions, the description should mention prerequisites like an active debug session or the return format. It implies raw DAP via 'escape hatch' but does not explicitly state it. Given the low complexity, it is borderline sufficient but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain deployment_id or thread_id beyond the overall purpose. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers no format, source, or constraints, forcing the agent to infer their meaning.

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 specifies the action 'read stack frames' and the resource 'deployment debug runtime'. It uses 'DAP escape hatch' to signal a low-level, distinct operation compared to sibling debug tools like debug_inspect or debug_scopes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers only a vague implication 'low-level DAP escape hatch' that it is for special scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, so an agent receives little guidance on choosing this tool.

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