Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ui_monitor_wait

Wait for a semantic UI monitor event within a bounded timeout, polling at intervals until the event occurs or timeout expires. Ideal for .NET GUI automation.

Instructions

Wait for a semantic UI monitor event or return a bounded timeout.

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": {
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "ui_monitor_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYes
timeout_msNo
after_cursorNo
poll_interval_msNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions a 'bounded timeout,' adding some behavioral insight beyond annotations, but fails to disclose what happens on timeout, event semantics, or whether it blocks. Annotations are minimal, so more detail is needed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is only 9 words, which is too brief. It sacrifices necessary details for brevity, resulting in under-specification rather than conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

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 minimal annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of any parameter (monitor_id, after_cursor, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms), leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from names.

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 waits for a UI monitor event or returns on timeout. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like ui_monitor_poll or ui_monitor_events, lacking specificity about what constitutes a 'semantic' event.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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