jdwp-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries (e.g., inspect targets object fields by ID vs get_variable for locals; trace vs step operations; wait_for_class vs find_class). No significant overlaps that would cause misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5While most follow debug.verb_noun (set_breakpoint, get_stack), breakpoint-related tools are inconsistent: set_breakpoint uses 'set', but exception_breakpoint and watch lack the verb prefix. trace_result also breaks the verb pattern used in other getters like get_variable.
Tool Count3/528 tools is heavy (exceeds the 16-25 range) and pushes into 'too many' territory per the rubric, though somewhat justified by JDWP's complexity. Some consolidation might be possible (e.g., step operations with a direction parameter) but granularity aids LLM accuracy.
Completeness4/5Comprehensive coverage of debugging lifecycle: connection management, execution control (step/continue/pause), state inspection (stack/variables/objects), breakpoints (line/exception/watch), and evaluation. Minor gaps like clearing watchpoints specifically or class redefinition keep it from a 5.
Average 3/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.2.0
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
- This server provides 28 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only adds that variables are included, but omits critical behavior: thread selection logic, response format, depth limits, and performance characteristics of variable capture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at four words, but underspecified rather than efficiently concise. Front-loaded information is present, but the extreme brevity represents missing specification, not appropriate restraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a 4-parameter debugging tool with no output schema. Missing: thread context requirements, variable scoping details, return value structure, and pagination behavior. Description length is disproportionate to interface complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly addresses include_variables ('with variables'). It fails to explain max_frames, max_variable_depth, or the crucial thread_id parameter, leaving three-quarters of the interface undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic operation (getting stack frames) and mentions variables, but lacks specificity about which thread (current vs specified) and doesn't differentiate from similar inspection tools like debug.inspect or debug.get_variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites (e.g., paused thread), or when variable inclusion might be expensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose that this resumes execution temporarily, blocks until the next line/function entry, or what happens if the program terminates during the step. Omits behavioral traits critical for a debugger control operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (3 words). While front-loaded, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness given the complexity of debugger stepping operations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks annotations and output schema. Description provides no information about success/failure signals, execution state changes, or thread management behavior expected of a stepping operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (thread_id documented as hex string). Description adds no parameter context, but baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high. No additional semantic value provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the action ('Step into') but lacks domain context (debugging/execution) and scope (current thread vs specific thread). Implicitly distinguishes from step_over/step_out siblings via 'into' keyword but doesn't explicitly clarify the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus debug.step_over or debug.step_out. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be paused) or thread selection behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies read-only access but the description does not confirm whether the operation is safe, if it blocks the debuggee, or what thread attributes are exposed (IDs, names, states, stack traces).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (three words) which prevents waste, but crosses into under-specification territory given the complexity of the debug domain. Front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the debugging workflow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a debugging tool with no output schema. Fails to describe the return structure (thread IDs, states, metadata) or clarify whether this lists all live threads or includes terminated threads. Missing operational context critical for debugging scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, meeting the baseline score of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (list) and resource (threads) but lacks specificity about what 'threads' refers to in this debugging context (e.g., VM threads vs OS threads) and does not differentiate from sibling list operations like list_breakpoints or list_methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate typical workflows (e.g., that this should be used before select_thread to identify thread IDs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that this operation mutates execution state (advances PC), temporarily resumes then pauses execution, or what occurs if thread_id is omitted. Missing safety/prerequisites context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (3 words) with zero redundancy. However, brevity crosses into under-specification for a complex debugging operation. Front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing essential context for a debugger control tool: no output schema disclosure, no explanation of execution side effects, no thread selection behavior, and no error conditions. Incomplete for safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with thread_id documented as 'hex e.g. 0x1a2b, optional'. Description mentions no parameters, but baseline 3 applies since schema adequately documents the single optional parameter without description assistance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('step over') and scope ('next line'), but fails to distinguish from siblings like step_into or step_out. Assumes familiarity with debugger terminology without clarifying the semantics (skipping over function calls).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use step_over versus step_into (enter functions) or step_out (finish current function). Does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an attached debug session or suspended thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate side effects (none expected), execution requirements (e.g., whether the VM must be suspended), output format, or whether this works pre- or post-attach.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only four words with zero redundancy. While efficient, it may be overly terse for the complexity of a debugging environment with 25+ tools, lacking the contextual padding necessary for agent decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich debugging domain (24 siblings) but zero input parameters, the description should compensate with details about output format, invocation timing, or prerequisites. It provides only the bare minimum identifier of the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Get') and object ('JVM version info'), clearly stating the tool's basic function. However, with 24 sibling debug tools (including debug.inspect, debug.snapshot), it fails to differentiate when to retrieve VM info versus other debugging metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug.find_class or debug.inspect, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the debugger must be attached to a JVM first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It identifies JDWP protocol but omits critical behavioral details: whether connection blocks during timeout, persistence of the session, if the target JVM pauses on attach, or failure modes. 'JDWP' implies network debugging but disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words) with no redundant text. Front-loaded with the specific protocol. However, extreme brevity contributes to under-documentation given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention connection lifecycle, return values (session handle?), or that this must precede other debug operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). Description mentions 'JDWP' which provides implicit context for host/port, but does not explain allow_remote (security implications) or timeout_ms (blocking duration), failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb (Connect) and specific resource (JVM) with protocol (JDWP) specified. However, it does not explicitly clarify this as the prerequisite entry point distinct from siblings like debug.disconnect or debug.set_breakpoint, though the name implies this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisite conditions (e.g., JVM must be started with JDWP flags), or ordering relative to other debug operations in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies the read-only nature via the verb 'read' but fails to describe error behavior (variable not found), return format, or the fact that it operates within a specific thread/frame context (implied by parameters but not explained).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at five words with no extraneous content, but this brevity crosses into under-specification. The single clause is front-loaded but lacks supporting context that would help an agent understand the debugging context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugging tool with multiple context parameters (thread, frame) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the threading model, default frame behavior (frame_index: 0), error conditions, or how this interacts with debugger state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only thread_id described). The description confirms that the 'name' parameter refers to the variable name, adding semantic clarity. However, it provides no guidance on 'frame_index' (likely stack frame depth) or the relationship between parameters (e.g., that thread_id and frame_index establish the execution context).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read) and target (local variable), distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like debug.set_value. However, it does not differentiate from debug.inspect or debug.eval which may also retrieve variable values, nor does it clarify the scope of 'local'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., debug.eval for expressions vs. debug.get_variable for simple reads), no prerequisites (e.g., requires paused thread), and no workflow context within a debugging session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only indicates that threads are suspended. It omits crucial debugging context: whether this freezes the VM/program execution, if it's synchronous, whether it can be reversed via debug.continue, or behavior when called while already paused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only three words with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, though given the high complexity of the debugging domain with 25+ sibling tools, the brevity borders on insufficient rather than efficiently complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a complex debugging tool ecosystem. With no output schema, no annotations, and high domain complexity, the three-word description fails to address expected behaviors, error conditions, or state requirements necessary for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, which per evaluation guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately reflects this by not mentioning any parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Suspend) and target resource (all threads), which clearly identifies the tool's action. However, it could better distinguish from sibling stepping operations (step_into, step_over) by clarifying this halts execution entirely rather than advancing it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. For a debugging tool with 25+ siblings, the description fails to indicate that this requires an active debug session (via debug.attach) or when to prefer this over breakpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose critical debugging behavior: whether method execution has side effects in target VM, exception handling behavior, return value format, or thread safety implications. Only provides arg syntax examples.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by helpful (if compact) usage examples. Appropriate length for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a 4-param debugging tool with mutation potential. Missing: relationship to sibling tools (how to obtain object_id), output format (no output_schema), execution safety warnings, and error conditions. Only 1 required param but no explanation of optional params' impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75% (method param undocumented). Description adds syntax examples for args parameter ('list.get(0), map.get("key")'), clarifying expected arg format beyond schema's generic '[0], ["key"]' example. However, adds nothing for object_id, method, or thread_id parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action 'Invoke a method on an object' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling debug tools like debug.set_value or debug.inspect by specifying method invocation rather than field access or inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., debug.set_value for fields), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring active debug session or object_id from debug.get_variable), and no warnings about side effects or exceptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Search' implying read-only, but lacks critical details: return format (class names? objects? count?), search semantics (substring? regex? case-sensitive?), and performance characteristics for large JVMs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 5 words with front-loaded action. No redundancy, though brevity leaves behavioral gaps given lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations present. For a debugging search tool, description should specify return value structure and search behavior (wildcards, case sensitivity) but fails to compensate for missing structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with helpful examples (UserService, com.example.User). Description adds minimal context ('name pattern'), meeting baseline expectations when schema documentation is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Search' with resource 'loaded classes' and scope 'by name pattern'. Implicitly distinguishes from 'wait_for_class' by emphasizing currently loaded classes, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like 'wait_for_class' (which waits for future loads) or 'inspect' (which examines instances). No mention of prerequisites or search strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether this is read-only, what data structure is returned (field names only? values? types?), or any side effects. The term 'Inspect' is vague regarding the actual output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only 5 words, front-loaded with the action verb. While efficient, the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of contextual completeness for a complex debugging operation. No redundant words, but arguably underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich sibling toolset (24 alternatives) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to clarify what 'inspection' yields or how it fits into the debugger workflow. Without output schema, the description should indicate return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage ('hex e.g. 0x1a3f'), the schema adequately documents the parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond labeling it 'object ID', which is already implied by the parameter name. Baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('object fields') with clear scope ('by object ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `debug.get_variable` or `debug.eval`, which might also retrieve object information through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the 24 sibling debug tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debug session) or when to prefer this over `get_variable` or `snapshot`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to clarify critical mutation behaviors: whether changes persist after continuing execution, type validation rules, thread safety, or error conditions (e.g., if the variable doesn't exist in the frame).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of seven words is appropriately front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves critical gaps rather than being optimally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partially undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits expected context for debugger operations: target requirements, persistence semantics, and success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (thread_id and value are described; frame_index and name are not). The description grammatically implies that 'name' is the variable name and 'frame_index' selects the stack frame via 'in a stack frame', but does not explicitly document the undocumented parameters or explain the default frame_index=0 behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('local variable') and scope ('in a stack frame'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'debug.eval' (which could also assign values) or clarify when to prefer this over other mutation methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., must be paused), or side effects. The description states what it does but offers no workflow context for the debugging scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose execution behavior—specifically that execution resumes immediately and pauses when the current function returns. It also omits default thread selection behavior when thread_id is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse at 4 words with zero redundancy. While appropriately front-loaded, the extreme brevity approaches under-specification rather than ideal information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control-flow tool with numerous stepping siblings and no annotations/output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain that execution resumes until the current call stack frame returns, and clarify thread selection defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (thread_id fully documented with type/format), establishing baseline 3. The description adds no information about the parameter semantics, though none is required given complete schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses specific debugger terminology 'step out' with clear target 'current frame', which is standard debugging vocabulary. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like step_into/step_over or explain what a 'frame' represents in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (step_into, step_over, continue) or prerequisites such as requiring the debugger to be in a paused state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'timeout' but fails to explain what happens when the timeout expires (exception, null return, empty object) or what constitutes an 'event' in this debugging context. The blocking nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words) with no redundant language. However, it may be excessively terse given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, verging on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a debugging synchronization primitive with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical context: event types handled, timeout failure behavior, return value structure, and thread-safety implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It references 'timeout' which maps to the timeout_ms parameter, but does not clarify the unit (milliseconds), the default value (30000), or whether 0 means infinite wait. Baseline compensation is partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb ('Wait') and target ('next event'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling debug.get_last_event by emphasizing the blocking/waiting nature. However, it lacks explicit differentiation regarding when to prefer this over polling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 debug.get_last_event or event breakpoints. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being attached to a VM) or typical usage patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. States execution pauses ('break') but omits critical debugger behaviors: performance cost of field monitoring, whether watchpoint persists across class reloads, if it triggers on identical value re-assignment, or thread-safety considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of six words contains no filler. Front-loads the technical concept (Watchpoint). However, extreme brevity comes at cost of missing behavioral and contextual guidance that would be valuable for a debugging tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool modifies debugger state (creating a persistent watchpoint) yet lacks output schema and annotations. Given the operational complexity of JVM/data breakpoints and rich sibling ecosystem, description insufficiently explains side effects or success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage with clear examples (class_pattern) and intent (field name). Description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (break/pause execution) and trigger condition (field modified). Uses technical term 'Watchpoint' which distinguishes it from sibling 'set_breakpoint' (line breakpoints vs data breakpoints). Could be elevated to 5 by explicitly contrasting with breakpoint siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over debug.set_breakpoint or debug.trace. Does not mention that watchpoints monitor data changes across all execution points while breakpoints target specific lines. Agent must infer usage from the label alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the breakpoint_id doesn't exist), side effects on the debugging session, or whether the removal is immediate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is six words with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and wastes no space, while remaining grammatically complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations and no schema descriptions, it should explain error conditions or reference debug.list_breakpoints for obtaining valid IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates by indicating the parameter represents an 'ID'. However, it does not specify where to obtain this ID (e.g., from debug.list_breakpoints), expected format, or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('breakpoint'), specifying the mechanism ('by ID'). While clear about the core action, it lacks explicit scope clarification (e.g., active session requirement) and explicit differentiation from siblings like debug.set_breakpoint seen in tier-5 examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, prerequisites such as an active debug session, or workflow context (e.g., typically used after debug.list_breakpoints).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'End debug session' confirms the operation is destructive/terminal but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether the debuggee process continues running after disconnect, whether breakpoints are preserved, or if resources are cleaned up.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (three words) and front-loaded with the verb. While appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, the minimalism borders on under-specification given the lack of behavioral annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool with simple intent, but gaps remain regarding session lifecycle implications. Without annotations or output schema, the description should explain what 'ending' entails (cleanup, process state, etc.).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters per input schema (coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies. Description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('End') and resource ('debug session'), but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like debug.attach or debug.pause. Given the sibling context, it implies the opposite of attach, but this is not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use (e.g., 'when finished debugging') versus alternatives (e.g., debug.pause). No mention of prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it lists returned data, it omits critical behavioral traits: whether this requires an active debug session (debug.attach), if it's read-only/safe, execution pausing behavior, or atomicity guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely compact at 8 words. Front-loaded with the operation type ('Combined dump'). Uses colon structure effectively to separate operation from contents. However, extreme terseness sacrifices clarity on behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately enumerates the four components included in the snapshot (mapping to debug.get_last_event, debug.list_breakpoints, debug.get_stack, debug.get_variable). However, lacking output schema, it should clarify the return structure format or note that this is a convenience aggregation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per calibration rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses specific verb 'dump' and lists exact resources retrieved (last event, breakpoints, stack, vars). The term 'Combined' effectively distinguishes this aggregator from individual sibling tools like debug.get_stack or debug.get_last_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this compound tool versus calling the individual getters (debug.get_last_event, debug.get_stack, etc.) separately. No mention of performance tradeoffs or synchronization requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it specifies the scope affects 'all threads' (distinguishing from single-thread operations), it lacks critical context: whether this blocks until the next breakpoint, what happens if threads are already running, or any error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is maximally concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter debugging command with no output schema, the description covers the minimum viable semantics. However, given the lack of annotations, it should disclose behavioral aspects like asynchronous versus blocking execution or state requirements to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters (empty schema), which according to the rubric establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed, matching the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Resume' with the resource 'threads', clearly indicating it continues execution. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'debug.pause' and step commands, though it could explicitly mention 'execution' or 'program' for absolute clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 step_into/step_over, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the program should be paused first). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. Fails to disclose what constitutes an event, whether retrieval is destructive (clears buffer), error handling when no events exist, or expected response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient three-word sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and target, appropriate for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimally adequate for a parameterless tool but lacks critical context given no output schema or annotations: missing event structure details, distinction from debug.wait_for_event, and lifecycle of the 'last' event buffer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present; meets baseline expectation. Description implicitly confirms no filtering by not mentioning parameters, which is acceptable given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb and resource ('Show last breakpoint/step event'), identifying it retrieves recent debugging events. Lacks explicit distinction from siblings like debug.wait_for_event or debug.trace_result, and 'Show' is less precise than 'Retrieve'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., debug.wait_for_event which blocks for new events vs. this which retrieves history). No mention of prerequisites like active debugging session or connected VM.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only access but explicitly states no safety guarantees, output format, pagination behavior, or side effects. Does not clarify what constitutes an 'active' breakpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words with zero redundancy. The entire description earns its place by front-loading the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a parameterless tool but minimal given lack of output schema and annotations. Omits prerequisite context (debug session required) and return value structure that would help an agent understand the full operation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive baseline score of 4. Description appropriately requires no additional parameter exposition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb (List) and resource (active breakpoints). Distinguishes implicitly from sibling tools like set_breakpoint and clear_breakpoint through the action word, though lacks explicit scope clarification on what 'active' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as requiring an active debug session or attachment to a target VM before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (setting a default) but provides minimal behavioral context: it does not disclose whether the selection persists across calls, what happens if thread_id is invalid, whether this affects global debugger state, or if the change is validated immediately. For a stateful mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and purpose. However, given the complete absence of annotations and the complexity of the debug tool ecosystem, it borders on underspecification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the minimal description is technically adequate to invoke the tool. However, given the tool is part of a complex 20+ tool debugging suite with stateful interactions, the description lacks necessary workflow context—specifically how this selection affects subsequent inspection operations and its relationship to debug.list_threads.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (thread_id is documented as 'hex e.g. 0x1a2b'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but the schema coverage is sufficient that no additional semantic clarification is strictly necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('thread') with clear scope ('default thread for inspection'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'debug.list_threads' (which enumerates threads) or 'debug.attach' (which attaches to a process), though the verb 'select' implies a different action than 'list' or 'attach'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for inspection' implies usage context—use this when you want to inspect a specific thread—but lacks explicit workflow guidance. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining thread_id from debug.list_threads, nor does it specify that subsequent inspection tools (debug.inspect, debug.get_stack) will target this selected thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optionally conditional' but fails to disclose persistence characteristics, performance implications, or what happens if the class is not yet loaded. The condition parameter schema mentions auto-resume behavior, but the main description does not elaborate on execution flow effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient at 7 words. Front-loaded with imperative verb ('Set'), zero redundancy, and every token conveys essential information about location format and optional functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the debugging domain complexity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but sparse. It omits context about breakpoint persistence across VM events, class loading requirements, and interaction with other debug operations that would be valuable for correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds valuable syntax context with 'class:line' which helps interpret the 'line' parameter lacking schema documentation. It also signals the optional nature of conditions, complementing the schema descriptions well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set breakpoint'), target location format ('class:line'), and optional capability ('optionally conditional'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exception_breakpoint' or 'trace' despite the rich debug tool ecosystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., exception_breakpoint for exceptions), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active debug session via debug.attach first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. Adds valuable context that output includes 'line ranges', but omits critical behavioral traits like whether an active debug session is required, error handling when class not found, or read-only safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded verb, immediately conveys scope and output format. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (methods with line ranges), compensating for missing structured output documentation. Could mention attachment requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage (class_pattern has example), baseline is 3. Description mentions 'class' which aligns with parameter, but does not clarify what 'pattern' means (wildcards allowed?) or add syntax details beyond schema example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (List) and resource (methods of a class) with output detail (line ranges). Mentions 'class' which helps distinguish from thread/breakpoint siblings, though could be clearer on distinction from debug.inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus debug.inspect or debug.find_class, nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring active debug session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (caught vs uncaught, class patterns) but omits important behavioral context: whether this persists across sessions, interaction with existing breakpoints, immediate side effects, or return values (critical given no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient single sentence with zero waste. The main action ('Break on exceptions') is front-loaded, and the parenthetical concisely encapsulates the three parameter semantics. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low schema coverage (33%), no output schema, and the complex stateful nature of debug breakpoint management, the description is minimal viable. It covers the filtering logic but misses session prerequisites, persistence behavior, and what occurs when the breakpoint triggers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low at 33% (only class_pattern has a description). The description compensates effectively by mentioning 'caught/uncaught' and 'by class', adding semantic meaning for all three parameters that the schema lacks for the boolean flags. It clarifies the optional nature of class filtering.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Break) and resource (exceptions), with specific scope details (caught/uncaught, by class) that distinguish it from sibling tools like debug.set_breakpoint. It loses one point because it could more explicitly signal that this configures a breakpoint policy rather than triggering an immediate break.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(caught/uncaught, optionally by class)' implies the specific use case (exception filtering), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus debug.set_breakpoint or prerequisites like requiring an active debug session. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependency workflow (must run after debug.trace) and hints at output format ('call path with depth'). However, missing critical behavioral details: it doesn't describe that results are consumed/retrieved, doesn't explain the 'aggregate mode' mentioned in schema parameters, and omits error behavior when trace hasn't been initialized.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and prerequisite; second sentence clarifies output content. Every word earns its place. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Acceptable completeness given 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description compensates for missing output schema by describing return content ('call path with depth'). However, lacks completeness regarding stateful error conditions (what happens if called without prior debug.trace) and doesn't clarify the consumption pattern of the trace results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both 'clear' and 'min_ms' fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, relying entirely on structured schema documentation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas where description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Get') + resource ('collected trace') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'debug.trace' by stating this retrieves results 'after' that tool runs. Also specifies output content ('call path with depth').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies prerequisite usage through 'after debug.trace', indicating temporal dependency. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use (e.g., before trace is started), error conditions if trace isn't active, or relationship to the 'clear' parameter's side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the blocking/waiting nature ('Wait for'), but lacks critical behavioral details: what happens when timeout_ms expires (exception vs silent return?), what the tool returns (void vs class info?), and whether this is a one-time wait or persistent hook.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Perfect two-sentence structure. First sentence states action, second states usage condition. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core verb, appropriate length for the tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case well but leaves gaps on timeout failure modes and return values. For a blocking operation with timeout, the agent needs to know if this throws on timeout or returns a boolean/status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%. The schema provides excellent examples for class_pattern ('e.g. com.example.MyService or *MyService'), but timeout_ms has no schema description. The description mentions 'class' (aligning with class_pattern) but does not compensate for the undocumented timeout_ms parameter or explain the default 30s behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent: specific verb 'Wait' + resource 'class to be loaded by the JVM'. The second sentence distinguishes from sibling tool set_breakpoint by specifying the exact failure condition ('class not found') that triggers this tool's use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit workflow guidance: 'Use when set_breakpoint says class not found.' This provides a clear conditional trigger and references the specific sibling tool, creating an unambiguous decision path for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden and successfully discloses the immediate-return/async nature and the coordination pattern with trace_result. However, lacks details on trace persistence, overhead, or cancellation behavior that would be useful for a debugging tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by critical behavioral context (returns immediately) and workflow instruction. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with complete schema documentation and no output schema. Covers the essential workflow gap (how to get results). Could improve by noting performance implications of tracing or trace duration limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 3 parameters (aggregate mode, include_args with performance note, class_pattern example). Description mentions 'class/package' which aligns with class_pattern but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (trace) on specific resource (method calls) with scope (class/package). Effectively distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming debug.trace_result as the companion tool to retrieve results, clarifying this is the setup action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Returns immediately' establishes async behavior, and 'use debug.trace_result to get the call path' names the exact alternative/companion tool for the next step. Clear when to use this vs the result-fetching sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Latest Blog Posts
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dronsv/jdwp-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server