Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

runtime_smoke_evidence_bundle

Read-only

Fetch a compact evidence packet for a runtime smoke run, using execution details to diagnose .NET application issues linked to a specified run ID.

Instructions

Return a compact evidence packet for a durable runtime smoke run.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "runtime_smoke_evidence_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes
agent_modeNo
event_limitNo
after_cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'Return', such as what the evidence packet contains or potential side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to adequately inform the agent about return format, pagination, or how to effectively use the parameters. The tool's behavior in different scenarios is opaque.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (run_id, after_cursor, event_limit, agent_mode). The agent receives no help understanding parameter meaning or usage.

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 tool returns a compact evidence packet for a smoke run, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like runtime_smoke_get_result or runtime_smoke_get_event_delta.

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 runtime_smoke_get_result. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation.

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