windows-debug-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_registry_value

Read a registry value from a specified key path and value name, supporting 32-bit or 64-bit views, to diagnose Windows crashes, stability, or gaming performance.

Instructions

Read a single registry value.

Args: path: Full key path. name: Value name. Use "" for the key's default value. view: "native", "64" or "32".

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "read_registry_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`view`	No	native

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 only states 'Read,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any permissions needed, side effects, or constraints. For a registry read, this 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise, using a clear header and a brief list of arguments. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the parameters and the core action, though a note about registry context might be helpful.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'path' as 'Full key path,' 'name' as 'Value name' with special case of empty string for default, and 'view' options. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the effect of view.

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 'Read a single registry value,' specifying the action (read) and the resource (registry value). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'read_registry_key' which would read a key, not a value.

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 like 'read_registry_key' or other registry tools. The description lacks explicit context for its appropriate use cases.

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