MCP GDB Server

by signal-slot

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Each tool targets a specific GDB operation like attaching, stepping, examining memory, or managing sessions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'gdb_' prefix with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., gdb_attach, gdb_backtrace, gdb_set_breakpoint). This predictability aids agent understanding and usage.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a GDB debugging server. It covers essential debugging operations without feeling overly heavy, though it could be streamlined slightly.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for GDB debugging workflows, including session management, execution control, breakpoints, memory examination, and stack analysis. No obvious gaps exist for the domain.
Average 2.8/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
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.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set a breakpoint' implies a mutation operation that modifies debugging state, but it doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., whether it pauses execution immediately, returns a breakpoint ID, or affects session persistence). It lacks critical details like error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects that would help the agent understand the tool's behavior.
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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Set a breakpoint') and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves the minimal purpose.
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?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with mutation behavior, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a breakpoint does, what happens after setting one, return values, error conditions, or relationships to other GDB operations. For a tool that modifies debugging state in a technical context, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
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 100%, with all three parameters (condition, location, sessionId) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a breakpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a breakpoint is in the GDB context, what resource it affects (e.g., debugging session), or how it differs from sibling tools like gdb_continue or gdb_step. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session), timing considerations (e.g., when the program is paused), or relationships to sibling tools like gdb_continue (to resume after breakpoint) or gdb_step (for step-by-step execution). This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attach to a running process' implies a mutation (attaching for debugging), but it doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., pausing the process), or error conditions. For a tool that likely alters process state, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity (a debugging tool with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after attachment, return values, or error handling. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (pid and sessionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Attach to a running process' clearly states the action (attach) and target (running process), which is adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what 'attach' means in the GDB context (e.g., debugging control) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gdb_start' (which might start a new process). This makes it vague compared to higher-scoring examples.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session or process), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'gdb_load' (for loading executables) or 'gdb_start' (for starting processes). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 carries the full burden. 'Show call stack' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active debug session, if it's safe to call repeatedly, what happens if the session is invalid, or the format of the output. This leaves significant gaps for a debugging 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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Show call stack', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover essential context like what the output looks like (e.g., stack trace format), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., requiring gdb_attach first). This makes it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (full, limit, sessionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'full' affects variable display or typical values for 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show call stack' clearly indicates the tool displays the call stack, which is a specific function. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like gdb_info_registers or gdb_print that might also display debugging information, nor does it specify the resource (e.g., for a GDB session) beyond what's implied by the tool name.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session), context (e.g., during debugging after a breakpoint), or comparisons to siblings like gdb_backtrace vs. gdb_info_registers for different debugging info.
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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like altering debug state, which is critical for a GDB 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's scope, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-like tool (execute implies potential changes), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (command and sessionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a GDB command' states the action (execute) and resource (GDB command), but it's vague about what this entails compared to siblings like gdb_print or gdb_set_breakpoint. It doesn't specify if this is for arbitrary commands or a subset, making it less distinct.
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 gdb_print or gdb_set_breakpoint. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Continue program execution' implies a mutation that resumes a paused program, but it doesn't specify what happens (e.g., runs until next breakpoint or end), potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Continue program execution'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool in a debugging context with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover execution behavior, return values, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely resumes a debug session, more context is needed to ensure correct usage by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('GDB session ID'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a session ID is, how to obtain it, or its role in the continuation. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Continue program execution' states a clear action but is vague about scope and target. It specifies the verb 'continue' but doesn't clarify what program is being continued (a debugged program in GDB) or how it relates to sibling tools like gdb_start, gdb_step, or gdb_next. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar debugging commands.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an attached or started debug session), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like gdb_step (step into) or gdb_next (step over). Without context, an agent might misuse it or confuse it with other execution control tools.
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, the description carries full burden but only states 'Examine memory' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. It fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective 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 extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'examine' returns, how it behaves, or its role among siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters well. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Examine memory' states a clear verb ('examine') and resource ('memory'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like gdb_print or gdb_info_registers. It lacks specificity about what 'examine' entails compared to similar 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Display registers' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this shows all registers or a subset, the format of output, any side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 just two words, front-loading the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
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?
Given the complexity of GDB debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the output looks like, how registers are formatted, or any dependencies on session state. For a tool in a technical domain with siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (register and sessionId) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Display registers' states the basic action (display) and target (registers), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of registers (CPU, debug, etc.) or distinguish from siblings like gdb_print or gdb_examine that might also show register values. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active GDB session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like gdb_print (which might display variables including registers) or gdb_examine (which might inspect memory). Usage is implied only by the tool name and context.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Step program execution' implies a mutation (changing execution state) but doesn't specify effects like whether it steps into functions, handles breakpoints, or requires a paused session. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a debugging 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 extremely concise with 'Step program execution'—a single, front-loaded phrase that directly states the action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the complexity of debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'step' entails, how it differs from siblings, what the output might be, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'sessionId' (required GDB session ID) and 'instructions' (optional boolean to step by instructions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Step program execution' states a clear verb ('step') and resource ('program execution'), but it's vague about what 'step' means in this debugging context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'gdb_next' (which likely steps over functions) or 'gdb_continue' (which resumes full execution), leaving ambiguity about its specific behavior.
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 alternatives. With siblings like 'gdb_next', 'gdb_continue', and 'gdb_finish' that are related to execution control, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'gdb_step', making it unclear when an agent should select it.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('Execute until the current function returns') but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether it stops at return point, displays output, or requires debug session state), permissions, or error conditions.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple execution control tool and front-loads the core functionality.
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?
For a debugger execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after execution (e.g., program state, output format), error handling, or how it interacts with other debugger tools in the sibling set.
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 100% (sessionId parameter is documented in schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides about sessionId.
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 action ('Execute until') and target ('the current function returns'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like gdb_continue, gdb_next, or gdb_step, which are also execution control 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdb_continue (run until breakpoint) or gdb_step (execute one line). It mentions 'current function' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must be paused at a function call) or exclusions.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., does it stop execution?), error handling, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves program execution and debugging.
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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of debugging tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after loading, error scenarios, or how it integrates with other GDB operations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters like 'program' and 'sessionId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, resulting in the baseline score.
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 'Load a program into GDB' clearly states the action (load) and target (program into GDB), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_start' or 'gdb_attach', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for initial loading vs. attaching to a running process, or how it relates to tools like 'gdb_start' or 'gdb_attach', leaving the agent without context for selection.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies the session state, potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), or what happens after loading (e.g., does it pause execution?). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in debugging workflows, what 'loading a core dump' entails (e.g., analyzing crash state), or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'corePath' is needed, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Load') and the resource ('a core dump file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_load' (which might load executables rather than core dumps), so it misses the highest score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session), exclusions, or related tools like 'gdb_start' or 'gdb_attach' for different debugging scenarios.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Step over function calls' implies a debugging operation that advances execution but doesn't enter function bodies, which is useful context. However, it lacks critical details like whether this requires a paused debug session, what happens if no function call is present, or what the expected output/state change is. For a debugging tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient phrase ('Step over function calls') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple debugging operation and immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of debugging operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'step over' means in practical terms, what the tool returns (e.g., next line info, register state), or error conditions. For a tool that modifies debugger state, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (sessionId and instructions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 'Step over function calls' clearly states the tool's action (step over) and target (function calls), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_step' (which likely steps into functions) or 'gdb_continue' (which continues execution), missing full sibling differentiation.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'gdb_next' over 'gdb_step' or 'gdb_continue', nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring an active debugging session. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify that this requires an active GDB session (implied by sessionId but not explicit), describe output format (e.g., printed text or structured data), mention error handling (e.g., invalid expressions), or note side effects (e.g., potentially altering debug state). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Print value of expression' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity (a debugging tool with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., session requirements, output format), usage context, or error scenarios. For a tool in a suite like GDB where siblings involve session management and execution control, more guidance is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without trial and error.
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 100%, with both parameters (expression and sessionId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain expression syntax (e.g., GDB expressions like '$rax'), sessionId usage (e.g., from gdb_list_sessions), or interactions between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 'Print value of expression' clearly states the action (print) and target (expression value), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like gdb_command (generic) or gdb_info_registers (specific), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'print' is specific enough for a debugging context.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session), differentiate from similar tools like gdb_examine (which might inspect memory), or specify use cases (e.g., evaluating variables during debugging). Without this, the agent must infer usage from context alone.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Start' implies an initialization action, it lacks details on what a GDB session entails, whether it's interactive or background, if it requires specific permissions or dependencies, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves process 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an agent to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Given the complexity of starting a debugging session (likely involving process execution and environment setup), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'session', what state it creates, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving significant gaps for tool invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both optional parameters (gdbPath and workingDir). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining typical values or interactions between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Start') and target resource ('a new GDB session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_attach' or 'gdb_list_sessions' which also involve session management, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gdb_attach' (attach to existing process) and 'gdb_list_sessions' (list sessions), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions for starting a new session versus other session-related operations.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Terminate') but doesn't explain what termination entails (e.g., whether it's destructive, irreversible, or affects other sessions), nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex context needed beyond the name.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like destructiveness, return values, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to invoke it correctly in a debugging 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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage. The schema already documents 'sessionId' as a required string for the GDB session ID, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Terminate') and the target ('a GDB session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_list_sessions' or 'gdb_start', which would require a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to terminate versus continue or detach a session. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns structured data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'active' means in this context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with debugging sessions.
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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool with no parameters.
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?
Given the complexity of GDB session management and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'active' session, the format of the returned list, or how this tool integrates with sibling tools for session lifecycle management, leaving the agent with incomplete contextual understanding.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active GDB sessions'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential sibling tools that might also list sessions or provide session information, which prevents a perfect score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like gdb_attach or gdb_terminate, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/signal-slot/mcp-gdb'

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