MCP SteamOS Devkit

by elliotttate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

coredump_list

List recent native coredumps from Steam Frame targets to review crash data remotely without opening a debugger.

Instructions

List recent Steam Frame native coredumps without opening them in a debugger.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "coredump_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`login`	No
`target`	Yes
`http_port`	No
`name_type`	No	guess

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description notes the 'without opening in a debugger' aspect, implying a safe operation, but given no annotations, it fails to disclose specifics like data source, permissions required, or performance impact. The burden falls on the description, which is insufficient.

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?

A single, direct sentence. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output (though output schema exists), inputs, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (Steam Frame native coredumps), and a key qualifier (without opening in a debugger). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_titles or steam_frame_cef_pages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., debugging tools that open coredumps). No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server