gdb and rr Debugging

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions(1)

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose clearly described. For example, step and next are separated by whether they enter function calls, and reverse tools are clearly prefixed. There is minimal overlap; batch_commands and exec_command serve different needs (sequential vs. single command).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun or verb phrase patterns. Reverse tools follow a uniform 'reverse-verb' naming. No mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
Tool Count4/5
34 tools is on the high end but appropriate for the comprehensive domain of GDB and rr debugging. Each tool covers a specific aspect without redundancy. The count feels slightly heavy but earns a high score due to the scope of the server.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all major debugging workflows: session management, breakpoints, stepping (forward/reverse, source/instruction), stack navigation, memory inspection, registers, source listing, variables, watchpoints, and escape hatch. rr tools include recording, replay, and all reverse stepping variants, leaving no obvious gaps.
Average 4/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions evaluating expressions and optional formatting, but fails to note potential side effects (e.g., if the expression includes function calls that modify state) or any destructive nature. The agent lacks information about whether this tool is safe or idempotent.
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 description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a clear list of format options. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose. Every element is relevant, and there is no fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (indicating return values are documented elsewhere), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, it lacks mention of error handling (e.g., invalid expression), side effects, or confirmation of successful evaluation. The description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the 'expression' parameter as 'any GDB expression' and details the 'fmt' parameter with possible values and examples. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the required 'session_id' parameter is not described, though it may be implicitly understood.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Print/evaluate a GDB expression' and references the GDB command 'print'/'p'. It identifies the specific resource (GDB expression) and action (print/evaluate), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'examine' or 'info_registers', which could be considered similar.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is unsuitable. For instance, it does not differentiate from 'examine' which also displays memory or expressions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the limit parameter but does not mention other behavioral traits such as side effects, required session state, or error handling. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but is adequate for a simple inspection tool.
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 covering purpose and parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., active session) and output format, which the output schema may provide.
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 description coverage, the description adds meaning for the limit parameter ('maximum number of frames to show (omit for full stack)') but provides no explanation for session_id. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool shows the call stack and references GDB backtrace/bt. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'context' or 'info_registers'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use backtrace vs context). The description only states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by referencing 'list', but does not specify behavior on empty threads list, error conditions, or the need for a valid session ID. It provides the GDB command analogy which adds some transparency.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose, which is front-loaded and efficient. It could be slightly more compact but it is not verbose.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the parameter 'session_id' is undocumented, and the description lacks context about the 'inferior' or session lifecycle. It is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool but has gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'session_id' parameter. The purpose of the parameter remains implicit; a user unfamiliar with the system would not know its role.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists all threads with their current location, explicitly referencing the GDB command 'info threads'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'select_thread' which selects a thread rather than listing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like selecting a thread or examining backtrace. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage, such as requiring an active session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation, not disclosing side effects (e.g., changing current frame), required permissions, or any constraints. This is minimal.
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 description is extremely concise with two short sentences, directly stating the purpose and parameter. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter. However, it omits behavioral context like frame state changes or interaction with other debugging commands, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the 'count' parameter (number of frames to move, default 1) but does not describe 'session_id'. It adds partial value for one parameter, but incomplete for the other.
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?
The description clearly states the tool moves up the call stack toward the caller, using the GDB 'up' command. It identifies the specific action and resource, and implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'down' tool.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'down' or 'select_frame'. The description only implies usage for navigating the call stack upward, lacking conditional or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains blocking until breakpoint/signal/exit and rr replay restart, but lacks details on side effects, interruption, or error handling.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with main action. Could be more structured with bullet points, but no fluff.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and existence of output schema, the description covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks parameter details and return value explanation.
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 explains the 'args' parameter (override arguments) but does not mention 'timeout' or 'session_id'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but it only partially covers one parameter.
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?
The description clearly states it starts or restarts the inferior program and blocks until it stops. It distinguishes from siblings by noting specific behavior in rr replay sessions and the ability to override arguments.
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 provides context for when to use (e.g., starting or restarting, with rr replay details) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like continue_exec or start_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (moving down) and parameter effect but does not mention side effects, safety, or state changes beyond the implicit navigation.
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 description is extremely concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and provides parameter details without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for its purpose. It could add a note about the effect on the current frame, but overall it provides sufficient context.
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 description explains the 'count' parameter with its default and meaning ('number of frames to move down'), adding value beyond the schema. However, the required 'session_id' parameter is not described, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.
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?
The description clearly states the tool moves down the call stack toward the innermost frame, referencing GDB's 'down' command, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'up' and 'select_frame'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'up' or 'select_frame', nor any mention of prerequisites or context where it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Blocks until stopped' but does not describe side effects, whether it is read-only, or error conditions (e.g., if no call site exists). More detail on blocking behavior and return values is needed.
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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and differentiation from sibling tool. No unnecessary words.
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 description is reasonably complete for a specialized tool with an output schema, but lacks parameter documentation and could elaborate on behavior when the call site is not found. Given the complexity of reverse execution, more detail on return states would improve completeness.
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 input schema has two parameters (timeout, session_id) with 0% coverage from the description. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters do, their formats, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.
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?
The description clearly states the tool runs backwards to the call site of the current function, using specific verbs and targets. It distinguishes from siblings like finish, reverse-step, and reverse-next by explicitly contrasting with finish and implying it operates at function level.
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?
The description specifies it is for rr replay only and requires a session created by start_replay_session. It also explains the relationship to finish, helping the agent choose between forward and reverse stepping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that breakpoints trigger in both directions in rr sessions and that temporary breakpoints auto-delete after first hit. However, it does not cover other behaviors like whether setting a breakpoint interrupts execution, error handling, or return value, which are left unspecified.
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 description is concise: two sentences plus a bullet-like list. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (debugger, 4 params, many siblings), the description covers key aspects: location formats, condition, temporary, and rr direction. It does not explain return values (but output schema exists) or error cases, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to three of four parameters: location (formats and examples), condition (expression syntax), and temporary (auto-delete behavior). session_id is not explained, but it's a common session identifier.
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 clearly states the tool sets a breakpoint at a location, with specifics about location formats and rr replay sessions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch' or 'delete_breakpoints', but the verb-resource pair is specific enough.
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 provides examples for location and condition but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., watchpoints). It implies usage through examples but does not state when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output but does not mention that the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action 'List all active sessions'. No wasted words.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic information but lacks usage context and behavioral notes. With many siblings, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter meaning, earning a baseline of 4.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'active sessions', and provides details about each entry (id, kind, alive status). This distinguishes it from sibling debugging tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like start_session, stop_session, etc. The description does not provide context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic deletion action. It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or irreversibility of deleting all breakpoints. Adequate but not thorough.
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 description is extremely concise, consisting of one focused sentence plus a brief parameter note. It front-loads the action and avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to mention the return value or any output, despite an output schema existing. It also omits error handling or effects of invalid parameters. For a simple delete tool, this lack of completeness reduces usability.
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 description explains the 'number' parameter (meaning and default behavior), adding value beyond the schema. However, the required 'session_id' parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema coverage, this partial explanation is insufficient.
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?
The description clearly states the tool deletes breakpoints, specifying 'one or all', and references GDB 'delete' for context. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'breakpoint' (which sets breakpoints).
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool (to delete breakpoints, individually or all). No exclusions or alternatives are needed as the only related sibling is for setting breakpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions blocking behavior and showing return value, but does not disclose interactions with breakpoints, exceptions, or whether results are printed or returned. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a critical exception in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with many siblings and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key alternative. However, it lacks details on timeout behavior, return value format, and how it handles breakpoints or errors.
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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the 'timeout' or 'session_id' parameters, leaving their purpose and usage unclear. The tool's functionality implies session_id identifies the debug session and timeout controls blocking duration, but explicit guidance is missing.
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?
Description clearly states the tool runs forward until the current function returns and shows the return value. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'reverse-finish' by noting the rr replay context, which is a key differentiator.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance for rr replay sessions, recommending reverse-finish instead. It also notes that the tool blocks until stopped. However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like 'next' or 'step' in normal debugging scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses that the tool 'kills the GDB process', which is a significant behavioral effect beyond just stopping. However, it does not mention potential side effects like unsaved data loss.
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 description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and effect.
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?
Given 34 sibling tools and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not discuss relationship with start_session, return values, or irreversibility, leaving some gaps for a safe usage.
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 single parameter 'session_id' is not described beyond its name and type. The description does not add any meaning or format guidance. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'stop and clean up' and the resource 'GDB session', with additional clarification 'kills the GDB process'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interrupt or start_session.
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 the tool is used to terminate a session, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like interrupt or finish. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description relies on the GDB 'x' reference to imply the tool is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, which would be beneficial for an agent.
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 well-structured: a one-line summary, parameter descriptions, and a concrete example. The information is front-loaded and essential, though slightly verbose.
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?
While the description covers most parameters and includes an example, it omits the required session_id parameter entirely. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but the missing session_id guidance reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed explanations and examples for address, count, fmt, and unit parameters, exceeding the schema's minimal type information. It clarifies GDB expression syntax, format characters, and unit sizes. However, the required session_id parameter is not mentioned, indicating a gap.
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?
The description clearly states 'Examine memory at an address' and references GDB's 'x' command, making the purpose and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools like 'print' (expression evaluation) and 'disassemble' (instruction disassembly).
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 provides an example of usage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'print' or 'disassemble'. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions blocking until stopped and requires a session, but omits details on timeout behavior, error handling, or state changes.
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?
Three concise sentences covering core purpose, requirement, and relation to sibling tool. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description covers key aspects. Missing timeout behavior, but overall adequate for selection.
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 coverage is 0%, and description does not explain the 'timeout' or 'session_id' parameters beyond mentioning the session requirement. Agents lack guidance on parameter meaning and usage.
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?
The description clearly states it runs backwards until a breakpoint or watchpoint, specifically for rr sessions. It distinguishes from forward continue_exec and mentions blocking behavior.
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 prerequisite (rr replay session) and notes it is the reverse counterpart of continue_exec, implicitly guiding when to use. However, explicit exclusions vs other reverse commands are not given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It notes 'Blocks until stopped' and skips loops without temporary breakpoints, but does not disclose timeout behavior (though timeout param exists) or what happens if location is never reached.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose, second adds behavioral nuance, third details the key parameter. No waste.
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 description is complete regarding what the tool does but lacks parameter descriptions for session_id and timeout, and does not mention return value or output schema. For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, more detail would be beneficial.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly describes the 'location' parameter with examples. However, 'session_id' and 'timeout' are not explained at all; timeout's default is 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?
The description clearly states the tool runs forward until a specific location is reached, with distinctive behavior: skipping loops and blocks without setting temporary breakpoints. This distinguishes it from siblings like step, next, or finish.
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?
The description implies when to use (run to a location without breakpoint) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. The hint about skipping loops implicitly suggests avoiding it when loop stepping is desired.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only inspection with no side effects mentioned. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be more explicit about prerequisites or limitations.
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 description is concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by a structured list of scope options. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity, an output schema, and siblings, the description covers essential usage. However, it does not mention any prerequisites like an active session, though 'session_id' is required.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'scope' parameter with enumerated values, but does not describe 'session_id' beyond its presence. This adds some value but is incomplete.
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?
Description clearly states the tool shows variables in the current stack frame, with specific reference to GDB commands 'info locals' and 'info args'. This distinguishes it from siblings like info_registers or print.
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?
The description explains the scope parameter and its values, but does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtrace or context. The context of stack frame inspection is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description covers sequential execution, returns each output, and explains stop_on_error behavior. Lacks details on state persistence or side effects but adequate.
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 clear sentences plus example and parameter note. No wasted words, information density high.
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?
Moderate complexity with 4 params and output schema, but description omits timeout and session_id. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding all inputs.
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, description explains commands with example and stop_on_error with default and effect. Misses timeout and session_id parameters, leaving their roles unclear.
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 it executes a list of GDB commands sequentially and returns each output, with an example. Differentiates from sibling tools that execute single commands.
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?
States 'Useful to avoid multiple round-trips', implying batch usage. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like exec_command.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses an important side effect: resetting GDB's source-listing position. It also outlines the output structure. This is sufficient transparency for a debugging context tool.
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 description is concise and well-structured: a brief summary, a bullet list of components, usage guidance, and a note. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and clear purpose, the description covers most aspects except parameter semantics. It lacks details on potential errors or session prerequisites, but overall is adequate.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter (session_id). The description does not mention or explain this parameter, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's type and name.
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?
The description clearly states it returns a full snapshot of debugging context, listing specific components. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it combines commonly needed information into one call, which is not done by other tools individually.
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?
It explicitly advises calling it immediately after any stop event to orient before deciding next action. It does not specify when not to use or name alternatives, but the usage context is clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that SIGINT is sent and that the blocked call returns, but does not mention side effects, safety, or auth requirements. Adequate but not thorough.
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 with no redundancy. First sentence states the action, second provides usage context. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one required parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers purpose and usage well. Missing parameter explanation is the only gap, making it almost complete.
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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain the session_id parameter. The meaning is implicit but not explicit. Description should add value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Interrupt' and resource 'running inferior', and specifies the mechanism 'sending SIGINT'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like run, continue_exec, etc., by stating when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use: when run, continue_exec, or a reverse-* tool is blocking. Also explains the outcome: the blocked call returns with stop output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical blocking behavior of inferior-resuming commands and shows the output format with stop reason. It could mention timeout behavior or error handling, but the key behavioral trait is well communicated.
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 somewhat long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then examples, then important behavioral note. Each section adds value, though the example list could be trimmed. It is organized and easy to follow, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role as an escape hatch and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, blocking behavior, and examples. It does not detail the output schema (though it exists) or error scenarios. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe the command, session_id, or timeout parameters. The command examples give some context, but the timeout default is not explained, and session_id is not addressed. Systematic parameter descriptions are missing.
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?
The description clearly states 'Execute any GDB command and return its output. Escape hatch for commands without a dedicated tool.' This immediately defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that have dedicated commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly labels the tool as an 'escape hatch for commands without a dedicated tool,' implying when to use it. It provides useful examples and warns about blocking commands, recommending the interrupt tool. This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a read-only operation, the description adequately conveys the behavior. It explains parameter effects but doesn't detail output format; however, the output schema is provided, so this is acceptable.
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 description is extremely concise with no wasted words. The first line states the purpose, and the second details the parameter. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that all registers are shown by default, but that is implied by 'omit for all'.
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 description adds meaning for the 'register' parameter (optional, specific name or omit for all), but the required 'session_id' parameter is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter context was expected.
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?
The description clearly states the tool shows CPU register values and references the GDB command 'info registers'. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'print' and 'disassemble' by focusing on registers.
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?
The description explains when to use the optional 'register' parameter (specific name or omit for all). It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for register inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description adequately reveals the side-effect of switching the active thread for subsequent stack and variable commands. It could be enhanced by noting error cases like invalid thread IDs, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 description is remarkably concise with three focused sentences that each deliver essential information without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers the key steps (identify thread ID, switch, implications for other commands). It lacks guidance on session_id, but the overall context is almost complete.
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 adds some value by hinting at thread_id's origin via list_threads, but it does not explain session_id or provide constraints beyond the schema types. More explicit parameter guidance would improve this score.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'switch to' and the resource 'a specific thread,' with an explicit reference to the GDB command. It distinctively sets the tool apart from siblings like list_threads (listing) and select_frame (frame selection).
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?
The description advises using list_threads to find thread IDs and explains the effect on subsequent commands. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that the returned session_id works with other tools and lists reverse-execution capabilities, but it does not disclose potential side effects, resource locks, or permission requirements. More behavioral context would be beneficial.
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 front-loaded with purpose, then workflow, then param details. It is generally concise, though the list of reverse-execution tools could be seen as slightly redundant given those are separate sibling tools. Overall, it is efficient.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should more explicitly mention the return format. While it says 'The returned session_id', it does not specify that the tool returns an object containing session_id. Also, it lacks error conditions or session lifecycle details, making it moderately complete for a tool with two optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides brief explanations for both parameters: 'trace_dir: trace directory from rr_record; omit to replay the most recent recording' and 'cwd: working directory for rr (defaults to current directory)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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?
The description states 'Start an rr replay session for time-travel debugging. Step 2 of the rr workflow.', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rr_record and start_session. It provides a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Call rr_record first to produce a trace, then call this tool.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and positions it within the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors (enters called functions, machine instruction mode) but omits details like session state requirements, breakpoint interaction, or side effects during stepping. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Very concise: two sentences for purpose and parameter explanation, with no extraneous text. Front-loaded with primary action, then parameter details, then alternative guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers behavior and parameters. Minor gap on 'session_id' but overall sufficient for AI agent to use correctly.
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?
Description explains 'count' and 'instruction' parameters with defaults and meaning, but does not mention 'session_id' which is required. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters; missing one parameter reduces effectiveness.
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?
The description clearly states it steps forward into the next source line or machine instruction and enters called functions. It distinguishes from sibling 'next' and mentions 'reverse-step' for RR sessions, making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('step into') vs alternatives: 'Use next to step over calls instead' and 'use reverse-step to step backwards' in RR sessions. Clear guidance on parameter usage with defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior ('Blocks until the program stops again'), which is key. Lacks other details like side effects or permissions, but sufficient for a debugger tool.
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 action. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with clear context. Output schema exists but description doesn't need to explain return. Missing parameter docs slightly reduce completeness.
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 coverage is 0%; parameters ('timeout', 'session_id') are not described in the description. The timeout parameter is hinted at by 'blocks', but not explicitly explained.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Continue forward execution') and the resource ('from the current stop'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'reverse-continue' by mentioning it for rr replay sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (forward execution) and when not (use reverse-continue for rr replay). Also mentions that it blocks, providing context on behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, but the description details the behavior: it uses GDB's disassemble command, explains location syntax and source interleaving. This is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool.
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 description is concise, well-structured with bullet points for parameters, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence provides meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description covers essential usage and parameter options. It could mention the requirement of an active session, but session_id is required, so it's implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: location (function name, *address, range, or omit), with_source (interleaves C source). This adds significant value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states it disassembles code (specific verb + resource) and explains the location parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger commands by focusing on disassembly.
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 gives a guideline to omit location for current function, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtrace, step, or examine. No sibling comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses scrolling behavior but doesn't state that tool is read-only or safe, which is typical for listing.
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?
Extremely concise (3 lines), front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description need not cover returns. It adequately covers parameter meaning and common usage pattern for a simple source listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning for 'location' parameter (function name, file:line, null) and scrolling usage, compensating for schema gap.
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?
The description clearly states 'List source code' with GDB equivalents, and explains the location parameter format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'examine' by focusing on source listing.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on scrolling behavior ('Call repeatedly with no location to scroll forward') but lacks direct comparison to siblings or when to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it blocks until stopped and enters called functions when going backwards. With no annotations, this is sufficient behavioral context for a debugging tool, though it could mention constraints like only moving within recorded execution.
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?
Concise and well-structured: 5 sentences cover rr-only context, behavior, requirements, sibling differentiation, and parameter details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its key parameters. Missing error conditions or end-of-recording behavior, but overall sufficient for a step 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?
Description adds meaning for 'count' and 'instruction' parameters, but fails to describe the required 'session_id', which is essential. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is higher, and the gap reduces the score.
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?
The description clearly indicates the tool steps backwards into the previous source line or machine instruction, specifying the verb 'step backwards' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'reverse-next' by noting it enters called functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. reverse-next, and that it requires an rr replay session created with start_replay_session. Provides clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that crashes are recorded normally, stdin is unavailable, and timeout behavior. Does not mention potential side effects or system prerequisites, but covers key behavioral traits.
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?
Description is well-structured with a brief overview, then bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and workflow context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains the return value (trace_dir). Covers parameter details and important behavioral notes. Could mention that it returns a string path, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully: explains binary, args, cwd (with default), and timeout (with default). Each parameter gets meaningful explanation beyond schema types.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Record a full program execution'), the tool (rr for time-travel debugging), and its place in the workflow ('Step 1'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_replay_session' and 'run' by noting it captures a deterministic trace and returns trace_dir.
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?
Explicitly states it's the first step and that trace_dir is passed to start_replay_session. Includes important context: crashes and non-zero exit codes are normal, stdin unavailable. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but the workflow context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses the behavioral effect: it changes the context for subsequent inspection commands. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second provides context and effect. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple selection tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and effect. It doesn't need to describe return values since output schema exists. The mention of backtrace ensures the agent knows the prerequisite.
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 description adds meaning to the frame parameter (it's a number, 0 is innermost), but session_id is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should at least mention session_id's role, though it's a common parameter across tools. The added value partially compensates but not fully.
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?
Description clearly states it selects a stack frame by number, referencing GDB 'frame N'. It explains the special case of frame 0 and the effect on inspection commands, making it distinct from siblings like backtrace or up/down.
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?
Explicitly advises to use backtrace to see frame numbers first, and explains that after selection, inspection commands operate in that frame's context. This provides clear context, though it could mention alternatives like up/down for relative movement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description transparently explains the watchpoints' behavior: they stop execution on data changes, not code reach. It details the three modes (write, read, access) and clarifies scope (any GDB expression). It does not mention limitations like hardware watchpoint count, but is sufficiently transparent for typical use.
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 description is concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then providing necessary details in a scannable format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'expression' with examples (e.g., "x", "buf[4]", "*0x601020") and 'mode' with each value's effect (write, read, access). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool sets a watchpoint that stops execution when an expression changes, distinguishing it from breakpoints that stop at code locations. It specifies the resource (expression) and the action (watch), making purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides useful usage contexts (tracking memory corruption, unexpected variable mutations) and implicitly contrasts with breakpoints by noting 'not where execution reaches.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools like breakpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: does not enter functions, the effect of the 'instruction' flag (step over machine instruction), and the count parameter for multiple steps. It also mentions rr replay sessions. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool modifies the debug session state (e.g., advancing the program counter), but this is implied and typical for a stepping tool.
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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Parameter descriptions are listed with clear formatting. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the parameters are described, the description is complete enough. It covers the main behavior, parameter effects, and sibling differentiation. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'count' and 'instruction' parameters with their defaults and meanings, which is helpful since the schema has 0% description coverage. The 'session_id' parameter is not described, but its purpose is clear from context (identifying the debug session). The description adds value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool steps forward over the next source line or machine instruction without entering called functions. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'step' and 'reverse-next' by explicitly advising use of 'step' to enter calls and 'reverse-next' for stepping backwards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: step without entering functions. It also tells when to use alternatives: 'Use step to enter calls instead' and 'use reverse-next to step backwards' for rr sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses blocking behavior, session requirement, and the distinction between stepping by source line vs instruction. Although no annotations exist, the description adds sufficient behavioral context.
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?
Compact and well-organized: begins with core functionality, then requirements and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers tool purpose, prerequisites, parameter behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. Output schema exists, so omission of return values is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Explains count and instruction parameters with defaults and behavior. session_id is not described but its purpose is obvious from context. Since schema coverage is 0%, description compensates well.
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?
The description clearly states the tool steps backwards over previous source line or machine instruction. It distinguishes from reverse-step (which enters calls) and next (forward counterpart).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states requirement for rr replay session created with start_replay_session. Mentions when to use reverse-step instead, providing clear guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (session_id), notes binary can be set later via exec_command, and explains each parameter's role. However, it does not discuss failure modes or what happens if a session already exists.
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 description is concise with two main parts: a purpose sentence explaining the return value and alternative usage, followed by three bullet-style parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: it mentions the session_id return, explains all parameters, and suggests an alternative. It lacks details on failure scenarios or preconditions, but covers the essential aspects for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It provides clear inline explanations for each parameter: binary (path, can be set later), args (command-line arguments), and cwd (working directory), adding meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool starts a GDB debug session and returns a session_id needed by all other tools. It distinguishes from siblings like start_replay_session and rr_record by explicitly mentioning the alternative for time-travel debugging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use this tool (to start a new session) and explicitly suggests alternatives for time-travel debugging (rr_record + start_replay_session). It also mentions the session_id is required by all other tools, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gdb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/schuay/gdb-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/schuay/gdb-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gdb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/schuay/gdb-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/schuay/gdb-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/schuay/gdb-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server