Parse PCSX2 or N64 emulator crash logs and register dumps to extract PC, RA, SP and BadVAddr values, correlate symbols, and generate hypotheses about the cause of the crash.
Analyze a crash log or register dump from PCSX2 or an N64 emulator: parses PC, RA, SP, BadVAddr, correlates symbols, and formulates hypotheses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arch | Yes | Console architecture | |
| logText | Yes | Log text containing CPU registers or crash dump |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real value by disclosing the internal steps (parsing PC/RA/SP/BadVAddr, symbol correlation) and signaling that output is heuristic ('formulates hypotheses'), which tells the agent results are probabilistic. However it says nothing about safety, side effects, performance/rate characteristics, or what happens if symbols are missing.
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?
A single sentence with the resource and the processing steps front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The compressed register list is dense but readable and earns its space by telling the agent what log content is expected.
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 two-parameter, annotation-free analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, processing steps, and the qualitative nature of the output, which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. The main gap is prerequisites and result format, but those are secondary for a diagnostic/read-style tool.
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, and the enum on arch constrains values. The description adds modest meaning by spelling out which register fields it looks for in logText and by naming the two emulator families that map to the arch enum. That is baseline-level added context.
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?
Names a specific resource (crash log / register dump from PCSX2 or N64 emulators) and specific verb (analyze, parse registers, correlate symbols, formulate hypotheses). This clearly separates it from static-analysis siblings like mips_disassemble or analyze_n64_rom, though it never names those alternatives 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?
Usage is implied by the input type: an agent holding a crash dump or register dump knows this is the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that symbols must be available for correlation), and no pointer to siblings for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.