Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_breakpoints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists active breakpoints in a .NET debugging session, with optional file filter for line breakpoints.

Instructions

List breakpoints (line + function). Per-file filter scopes only line bps.

Escape hatch: see the dap-escape-hatch prompt for unwrapped DAP requests.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_breakpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that per-file filtering only affects line breakpoints, which is useful but does not significantly expand beyond annotation information.

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 plus a note: no fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main action and key constraint.

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?

No output schema and no mention of return format or structure. For a list tool, agents may need to know what fields are returned. The escape hatch partially covers advanced needs, but overall completeness is average.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It clarifies the 'file' parameter: provides a file to filter only line breakpoints in that file. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though format details 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists breakpoints (line and function), and specifies that the per-file filter only applies to line breakpoints. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_breakpoint or clear_breakpoints.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The escape hatch mentions DAP requests for unwrapped details, but does not compare to other listing tools or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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