Skip to main content
Glama
tosssssy

debug-thinking

by tosssssy

debug_thinking

Track and document debugging processes with a graph-based system to decompose problems, test hypotheses, and retrieve past solutions.

Instructions

Graph-based debugging knowledge management system. Helps track debugging process systematically and retrieve past solutions.

Use this tool when:

  • User reports an error or bug that needs systematic investigation

  • You need to document your debugging approach for complex issues

  • You want to check if similar problems were solved before

  • Building a knowledge base of debugging patterns

Actions:

  1. CREATE - Add nodes to the debugging graph

    • nodeType: problem|hypothesis|experiment|observation|learning|solution

    • content: Description of the node

    • parentId: Optional parent node for automatic edge creation

    • metadata: Optional tags, confidence scores, etc.

  2. CONNECT - Link nodes with relationships

    • from/to: Node IDs to connect

    • type: decomposes|hypothesizes|tests|produces|learns|contradicts|supports|solves

    • strength: 0-1 relationship strength

  3. QUERY - Search and analyze the graph

    • queryType: similar-problems|recent-activity

    • parameters: pattern (search text), limit, minSimilarity

Example workflow:

  • CREATE problem "TypeError: Cannot read property 'x' of undefined"

  • CREATE hypothesis "Missing null check in async operation"

  • CREATE experiment "Add optional chaining operator"

  • CREATE observation "Error resolved"

  • QUERY similar-problems with pattern "TypeError undefined"

Data persists in ~/.debug-thinking-mcp/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform
nodeTypeNoType of node to create (for create action)
contentNoContent of the node (for create action)
parentIdNoParent node ID for automatic relationship creation (for create action)
metadataNoAdditional metadata for the node (for create action)
fromNoSource node ID (for connect action)
toNoTarget node ID (for connect action)
typeNoType of relationship (for connect action)
strengthNoStrength of the relationship (for connect action)
queryTypeNoType of query to perform (for query action)
parametersNoQuery parameters (for query action)
Behavior5/5

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it maintains a graph, persists data to ~/.debug-thinking-mcp/, and describes the effects of each action (create, connect, query). No contradictions.

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 well-organized: purpose sentence, usage guidelines, bullet-pointed actions, example workflow, and persistence note. Front-loaded and every section adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, nested objects, no output schema, no siblings), the description explains the graph concept, all actions, when to use, and provides a complete example. No gaps for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters by action and provides an example workflow, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not delve deeper into each parameter's semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is a 'Graph-based debugging knowledge management system' that helps track debugging systematically and retrieve past solutions. It lists specific actions (CREATE, CONNECT, QUERY) with details, making the purpose unambiguous. No siblings exist to differentiate from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides 'Use this tool when:' conditions: error reporting, need to document approach, check past solutions, build knowledge base. Also includes an example workflow demonstrating how to use the actions in sequence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosssssy/mcp-server-debug-thinking'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server