Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_breakpoint

Idempotent

Remove a breakpoint at a specified line in a file to stop the debugger from pausing there.

Instructions

Remove a breakpoint from a specific line.

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

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "line": "<line>"
    },
    "name": "remove_breakpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
lineYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which partially inform behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what happens if breakpoint doesn't exist). With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as baseline.

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: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds relevant escape hatch information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple removal tool, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details on error handling (e.g., non-existent breakpoint) and return value. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, more context would be beneficial.

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%. The description does not explain the parameters 'file' or 'line', leaving the agent without additional context on expected format or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Remove a breakpoint from a specific line.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'breakpoint' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_breakpoint' and 'list_breakpoints' by focusing on removal.

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 clearing all breakpoints with 'clear_breakpoints'. It only mentions an escape hatch for unwrapped DAP requests, which does not clarify usage context.

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