Execute the Thunder Client debug command and view diagnostic information to troubleshoot API requests.
Runs the Thunder Client debug command and display the result.
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": "tc_debug"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'display the result' but does not disclose side effects, state changes, or any other traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is somewhat underspecified. It earns its place but could be slightly improved with more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. For a debug tool, more information about expected output or behavior would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a debug command and displays results, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'tc_create' which likely creates something, but the term 'debug command' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It only describes what it does without any context on typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.