Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gdb-mcp

gdb-mcp

by datobena
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

attach_to_pid

Attach GDB to a running process by its PID to start a live debugging session with customizable options like working directory and timeout.

Instructions

Start gdb and attach to an existing process id.

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": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "attach_to_pid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYes
cwdNo
load_initNo
start_timeoutNo
promptNo
force_promptNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that gdb is started and attached, but does not mention that it creates a persistent session, requires subsequent commands, or that it may take time due to start_timeout. Important traits like session lifecycle are omitted.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, yet it is under-specified, which reduces helpfulness. A slightly longer description with parameter context would be preferable.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how the tool fits into the overall workflow (e.g., interaction with gdb_command or batch_commands).

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'attach to an existing process id' and does not explain any of the 6 parameters, such as cwd, load_init, start_timeout, prompt, or force_prompt, leaving the agent without necessary context for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool starts gdb and attaches to an existing process id, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like start_binary (starts a new binary) and gdb_command (sends commands to an already attached session), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_binary for starting a new process or gdb_command for interacting. It lacks context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate.

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