step_outResume execution until the current function returns, then pause in the caller to inspect the next frame in a Node.js debug session.
Run until the current function returns and pause in the caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait_ms | No | How long to wait (ms) for the process to pause again before returning 'running'. |
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 discloses the core behavior (run to return and pause in caller) but omits edge cases such as what happens at the top frame, what is returned, or whether the process may remain running; the wait_ms schema partially covers the 'running' outcome.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves some behavioral gaps that a slightly longer description could close.
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?
For a low-complexity stepping tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could reasonably mention error conditions and the return behavior to be fully self-contained.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single wait_ms parameter is already well documented in the schema, including its default, bounds, and 'running' return implication. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.
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 states a specific debugger behavior: run until the current function returns and pause in the caller. This is clear enough to distinguish it implicitly from step_over and step_into, though it does not name or contrast those siblings explicitly.
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?
The usage is implied by the definition of stepping out of a function, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over step_over, step_into, or continue, nor any caveats such as being at the top of the call stack.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.