Keil5 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

uv4_debug_dde

Fetch debug session output from Keil UV4 using the session ID to monitor real-time debug feedback during the build-debug-fix loop.

Instructions

Read the output of a UV4 -d debug session (session output channel).

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "uv4_debug_dde"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a safe read operation, but the description does not explain what happens when the session does not exist, whether the tool returns or streams output, how the session output channel is scoped, or whether any side effects occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentenced with no wasted words and front-loads the primary action 'Read'. However, it is too terse to be fully useful, trading necessary operational context for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema coverage of its single parameter, the description is undersized. It leaves key questions about session lifecycle, output format, and relationship to sibling debug tools unanswered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail beyond the schema's 'session_id' property name. The description does not explain what session_id refers to, how to obtain it, or what format it should take, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verband resource: it reads the output of a UV4 -d debug session via the session output channel. This is reasonably distinct from the sibling tools, especially read_rtt_log, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from uv4_debug_session or clarify what 'UV4 -d' means.

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?

No usage context is given. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of uv4_debug_session, read_rtt_log, or probe read operations, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active debug session.

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