Retrieve the active VS Code debug session and breakpoints to inspect debugging status.
Active debug session and breakpoints.
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": "vscode_debug_state"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses nothing - no indication of what 'debug state' includes, whether it errors with no active session, or what the response contains (and there is no output schema to fall back on).
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?
It is certainly short, but this reads as under-specification rather than tight writing: a single verbless fragment that omits the operation entirely. Brevity here costs clarity rather than buying it.
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 output schema and no annotations describing return values, the description is the only place the agent could learn what comes back, and it does not. 'Debug state' is left undefined for a tool that presumably returns session status and the breakpoint list.
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 of 4 applies. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify.
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 fragment 'Active debug session and breakpoints' names the resource but contains no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read operation. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling vscode_add_breakpoint, which it is clearly the read counterpart to. Purpose is guessable but vague.
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 call this versus alternatives such as vscode_add_breakpoint or vscode_diagnostics. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.