keil-mdk-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

keil_remove_breakpoint

Removes a breakpoint at a specified hex or decimal address and verifies its removal, helping confirm debugger state before continuing execution.

Instructions

Remove and verify removal of a breakpoint at a hex or decimal address.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "keil_remove_breakpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses verification after removal, but does not explain what happens if the address has no breakpoint, whether removal affects execution state, or what session/permission assumptions apply.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the operation and verification behavior efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values, and the description is adequate for a simple one-parameter mutation. However, it omits debug-session prerequisites and failure behavior, which matter for an agent invoking this against an embedded target.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single address parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It adds that the address may be hex or decimal, which is useful, but does not clarify formatting details such as whether 0x must be included.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: remove a breakpoint at an address, and additionally verifies removal. It clearly differs from set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints, though it does not name 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description: call this when a breakpoint should be removed. It does not state prerequisites such as an active debug session, nor does it discuss alternatives like listing breakpoints first.

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