PCSX2 MCP

by snowyegret23

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

remove_breakpoint

Remove a breakpoint or watchpoint at a given address in PCSX2, with configurable kind, size, and target.

Instructions

Remove a breakpoint or watchpoint.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "remove_breakpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	No	exec
`size`	No
`target`	No	ee
`address`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, constraints, or behavior when breakpoint does not exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description fails to provide necessary 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks substance. While concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter details, return value, or usage context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (address, kind, size, target). The description does not explain their purpose, defaults, or how to use them.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'breakpoint or watchpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_breakpoint, but lumps breakpoint and watchpoint together when separate removal tools exist.

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 like remove_watchpoint or remove_debug_breakpoint. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.

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