list_breakpointsRetrieve every breakpoint with its ID, location, condition, resolution state, and hit count to inspect active debugger status in a Node.js process.
All breakpoints with their ids, locations, conditions, resolution state and hit counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned records (ids, locations, conditions, resolution state, hit counts), which is the key behavioral question for a list tool, but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, or whether disabled/unresolved breakpoints are included.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the returned fields. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which is terse but not wasteful.
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?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what is missing structurally. It is close to complete for such a simple tool, though it omits any note on ordering or scope of results.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, argument-free call, leaving no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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 names the resource (breakpoints) and enumerates what is returned, making the operation clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_breakpoint, remove_breakpoint, and set_exception_breakpoints. It lacks an explicit verb ('List'/'Return'), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The operation is inferable from the name and the mutation-oriented siblings, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.