Retrieves the current debugger state—run generation, stop reason, processes, threads, and locals—for a session, with optional full module and stack lists.
Return current run_gen, stop_count, stop reason, processes, threads and local names. Optional full module/stack lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| include_stack | No | ||
| include_modules | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the extra burden is low. The description adds that stack/module lists are 'full' and optional, hinting at cost, but does not say how expensive they are or when the extra data is warranted.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary payload front-loaded and the optional extras second. Minor ambiguity in 'local names' costs a point but there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value format need not be restated. However, with zero schema description coverage, the definition should still clarify which session_id to supply and what the optional flags do; neither gap is closed.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does so only partially: 'Optional full module/stack lists' loosely maps to include_modules/include_stack but never names them, and session_id — the required parameter — is entirely unexplained.
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?
Specific verb 'Return' plus an explicit enumeration of the state fields (run_gen, stop_count, stop reason, processes, threads, local names). It is distinguishable from rad_get_stack and rad_list_processes by being a combined snapshot, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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 statement of when to call this instead of rad_get_stack, rad_list_processes or rad_evaluate, and no prerequisite context (e.g., that the session must be stopped). Usage is only inferable from the returned fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.