dosbox-x-mcp

by md0-code

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

dosbox_remove_trace

Destructive

Remove an installed code trace by restoring the call site and clearing the cave, stopping further tracing.

Instructions

Remove an installed trace: the call site is restored first so nothing new can enter the cave, then the cave is blanked.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dosbox_remove_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	No
`handle`	No	Trace handle; omit if only one is installed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false. The description adds useful process context: the call site is restored first to prevent new entries, then the cave is blanked. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the sequence and the protective safety step.

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?

The description is a single sentence with the main action front-loaded and no unnecessary repetition. The use of metaphorical terms like 'cave' introduces slight ambiguity but does not bloat the description.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description sufficiently exposes the destructive process and ordering. However, it does not clarify how pid relates to the target trace or what the caller should do when multiple trace handles exist, which is meaningful for a destructive tool.

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?

The description does not explain pid or handle, and schema coverage is only 50% (handle is documented but pid is not). Since the description must compensate for that gap, the lack of any parameter-level meaning leaves an agent guessing about how to identify the trace to remove.

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 phrase 'Remove an installed trace' names a specific verb and resource and clearly states the core action. The additional call-site/cave detail describes what removal entails, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like dosbox_install_trace or dosbox_read_trace.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions such as 'use dosbox_read_trace instead to inspect a trace.' The usage context is only implicit in the action named by the description.

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