Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PCSX2 MCP

PCSX2 MCP

by snowyegret23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

evaluate

Evaluate a debugger expression in PCSX2 to inspect emulated hardware state. Provide the expression and optionally set the target (EE by default).

Instructions

Evaluate a PCSX2 debugger expression.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expression": "<expression>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoee
expressionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'evaluate'. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, whether the expression can modify state, or any authorization needs. The agent has little idea of what happens when calling this tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short—one sentence—but at the expense of completeness. It is under-specified, so brevity is not a virtue here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a debugger tool that evaluates expressions, the description is wholly inadequate. Without an output schema or explanation of return values, and with no parameter documentation, the agent cannot use this tool correctly. Many sibling tools likely have richer descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has two parameters (target, expression) with 0% doc coverage. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain what 'target' refers to or what the 'expression' syntax is.

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?

Description states it evaluates a debugger expression, which gives a basic idea of the action. However, it does not specify what kinds of expressions are accepted or what the output is, making it somewhat vague. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'disassemble' or 'read_memory'.

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 alternatives such as read_memory or get_registers. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using the evaluation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools