ih8sn1ff

by ih8w1nd

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

debug_breakpoint_remove

Remove a breakpoint at a specified address in a debugging session and restore the original byte.

Instructions

Remove a breakpoint and restore the original byte.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "debug_breakpoint_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: it restores the original byte rather than just deleting bookkeeping. However, it says nothing about session requirements, what happens if no breakpoint exists at the address, or persistence across sessions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a state mutation tool, but as a matter of conciseness and structure it is efficient.

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?

For a debugger-state mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves substantial gaps: preconditions, error behavior, and the meaning of both required params are undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither 'address' nor 'session_id'. The names are fairly self-explanatory, so this isn't fully opaque, but the description adds no semantics such as address format (hex/RVA/VA) or session scope.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Remove a breakpoint') that clearly pairs with the sibling debug_breakpoint_add. It does not explicitly name the sibling or scope (e.g., session-wide vs. specific address), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, preconditions, or alternative routing is given. The only implied usage is the obvious inverse of debug_breakpoint_add, which the agent must infer on its own.

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