pet-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pet_wait_break

Block program execution until a set breakpoint or watchpoint triggers. Returns checkpoint details and registers when fired; on timeout, machine continues running.

Instructions

Block until a breakpoint/watchpoint fires; reports checkpoint id, PC, and registers. Machine is left stopped when it fires. On timeout the machine is LEFT RUNNING (your checkpoints remain set) and the result is {"fired": null, "machine": "running", ...} — data, not an error.

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": "pet_wait_break"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session`	No
`timeout`	No
`checkpoint_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0Jul 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / checkpoint_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Checkpoint Id"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the machine is left stopped on firing and left running on timeout, and that timeout returns data not error. This is good transparency but could mention more about side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The timeout case is concisely covered.

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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and timeout edge case but lacks parameter explanations. It is adequate but not fully complete given the 0% schema coverage.

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 only mentions 'timeout' implicitly. It does not explain 'session' or 'checkpoint_id'. The timeout parameter's default of 30 is noted in schema but not contextualized.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool blocks until a breakpoint/watchpoint fires, reports checkpoint id, PC, and registers. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_break_add and pet_step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Describes the blocking behavior and timeout handling, but does not explicitly tell when to use this vs alternatives like pet_step or pet_continue. The timeout scenario is well explained.

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