Step through code one instruction at a time on the target microcontroller to inspect execution during a debugging session.
Single-step the target.
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": "probe_step"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe_id | No | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only names the core action. It does not state preconditions (target should be halted, probe must be connected), side effects (program counter advances by one instruction), or failure behavior. The description does not contradict any annotations because none exist.
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?
Three words with no fluff, front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the brevity borders on under-specification: it omits behavioral context an agent needs, so it reads more like a truncated label than a deliberately sufficient description.
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?
For a state-mutating debug operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete. Missing pieces include whether the target must be halted before stepping, whether the probe must already be connected, and what the call returns or how it fails. Given the sibling set (probe_halt, probe_resume, continue_target), sequencing guidance would materially improve correct invocation.
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 0% and the description never mentions probe_id, so an agent cannot tell what the parameter selects or when overriding the default 'default' would be appropriate. The single optional parameter is simple, lowering the burden, but zero semantic information is contributed by the description.
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?
States a specific verb ('single-step') and a resource ('the target'), making the operation clear: advance execution by one instruction. It is conceptually distinguishable from siblings like continue_target and probe_resume by the granularity of the operation, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is nothing about requiring a connected probe or a halted target first, no mention that continue_target would be the choice for free-running execution, and no sequencing advice relative to probe_halt. Usage is only weakly implied by the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.