Lists all active breakpoints in a debug session, showing their addresses and status for quick monitoring and control.
List all active breakpoints in the debug session with their addresses and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Debug session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the read-only listing behavior and the scope of results ('active', with addresses and status), but it does not mention error behavior for invalid sessions, whether inactive breakpoints are excluded, or other side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The verb, scope, and result contents are all front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity list operation with one required parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what the response contains. It could add a note about requiring an active debug session, but the required session_id parameter and sibling context make that reasonably inferable.
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 coverage is 100% because session_id is described as 'Debug session ID'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, meeting the baseline but not enriching the agent's understanding of the parameter.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active breakpoints in the debug session'), and names the returned attributes (addresses and status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like debug_set_breakpoint and debug_remove_breakpoint by being the read-only enumeration operation.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as requiring an active debug session. The phrase 'in the debug session' implies prior setup but does not state it, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.