PCSX2 MCP

by snowyegret23

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

set_breakpoint

Set exec, read, write, or read-write breakpoints and watchpoints to pause emulation on memory access.

Instructions

Set an exec/read/write/rw 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": "set_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action but does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens on invalid address, overwriting behavior, or side effects of the target parameter.

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) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 provides no parameter details. It mentions kinds (exec/read/write/rw) that match the kind parameter but leaves address, size, and target unexplained. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('exec/read/write/rw breakpoint or watchpoint'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_breakpoint, list_breakpoints, and set_watchpoint by specifying the kinds of breakpoints set.

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 vs alternatives such as set_watchpoint or remove_breakpoint. The description does not indicate prerequisites or context for use.

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