stm32-stlink-mcp

by phryniszak

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

List breakpoints

breakpoint_list

List all breakpoints currently tracked in an STM32 debugging session.

Instructions

Lists breakpoints currently tracked on a session (those set via breakpoint_set).

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "breakpoint_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations or an output schema, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies it only lists breakpoints created via breakpoint_set, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior like whether it triggers a session refresh, requires an active session, or what happens if the session is invalid.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then clarifies scope in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list operation with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks context about edge cases (e.g., no breakpoints set, session not found) and does not mention if the list is ordered or includes disabled breakpoints. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but has room to clarify the return contract.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to clarify the sessionId parameter, but it does not. However, the schema is simple and self-explanatory, with a single required 'sessionId' string. The description adds no extra meaning, but the parameter is obvious for the target audience, so a middle score is fair.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('breakpoints currently tracked on a session'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling breakpoint_clear and notes the scope ('those set via breakpoint_set'), which differentiates it from a generic breakpoint list.

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?

The description implies usage in the context of a debug session and contrasts with breakpoint_clear, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus an alternative like a hardware breakpoint list or when it would return empty. It is minimally adequate.

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