Skip to main content
Glama

core

Analyze Go program core dumps to identify crashes and errors by examining executable and dump files.

Instructions

Examine a core dump

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
executableYesPath to the executable that produced the core dump
corePathYesPath to the core dump file

Implementation Reference

  • The core tool handler implementation within handleDebugCommands switch statement. It destructures args for executable and corePath, starts a debug session for core dump analysis, and returns a success message with session ID.
    case "core": {
      const { executable, corePath } = args;
      const session = await startDebugSession("core", executable, [corePath]);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Started core dump analysis session ${session.id} for ${executable} with core ${corePath}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/server.ts:406-407 (registration)
    Registration dispatch in CallToolRequestSchema handler: checks if tool name is 'core' and delegates to handleDebugCommands.
    if (["debug", "attach", "exec", "test", "core", "dap", "replay", "trace"].includes(name)) {
      return handleDebugCommands(name, args);
  • src/server.ts:270-287 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListToolsRequestSchema response: defines 'core' tool name, description, and input schema requiring executable and corePath.
    {
      name: "core",
      description: "Examine a core dump",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          executable: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the executable that produced the core dump"
          },
          corePath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the core dump file"
          }
        },
        required: ["executable", "corePath"]
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'core' tool, specifying properties and requirements.
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          executable: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the executable that produced the core dump"
          },
          corePath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the core dump file"
          }
        },
        required: ["executable", "corePath"]
      }
    },
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. 'Examine' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is safe, what permissions are needed, what the output format is, or if there are any side effects like loading files into memory. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Examine a core dump') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 debugging tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'examine' entails (e.g., whether it returns stack traces, memory dumps, or other diagnostics), leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('executable' and 'corePath'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between these paths or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Examine a core dump' clearly states the verb ('examine') and resource ('core dump'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'debug', 'trace', or 'variables'), which might also relate to debugging activities, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'debug', 'trace', and 'variables' that might overlap in debugging contexts, there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'core'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

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/dwisiswant0/delve-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server