Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

runtime_smoke_validate_probe

Read-only

Validates a generated probe plan, catches invalid configurations, and returns clear run guidance for agent-mode .NET debugging.

Instructions

Validate one generated probe plan and return agent-mode run guidance.

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": {
      "probe": "<probe>"
    },
    "name": "runtime_smoke_validate_probe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
phaseNoafter
probeYes
budgetsNo
agent_modeNo
debug_preflightNo
tracepoint_guardNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'validate' and 'return guidance' is consistent. However, it provides no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects or return format.

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 that clearly states the main action and output. It is front-loaded but lacks structured layout. Very efficient.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits parameter details, return values, and contextual information about validation results.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., probe, name, phase, budgets). The agent cannot determine parameter roles from the description alone.

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 validates a generated probe plan and returns agent-mode run guidance, distinguishing it from similar siblings like runtime_smoke_validate_plan by specifying the output type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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, such as runtime_smoke_validate_plan or runtime_smoke_run_probe. No prerequisites or context for appropriate usage.

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