Mdkdebug

by xw1998

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

清除全部软件断点

clear_all_breakpoints

DestructiveIdempotent

Clears all software breakpoints from the debug session, optionally including persistent Keil .uvoptx entries. With hard mode, verifies and clears hardware FPB residues causing duplicate-address errors.

Instructions

清除软件断点：清空本服务内部记录并逐个按确切地址发 BK。include_uvoptx=True 时一并清除工程 .uvoptx 中 Keil 持久化的断点（BK 清不掉、下次进调试会自动恢复的残留）。注意：Cortex-M 目标经 SWD/JTAG 调试时，未超出硬件断点槽位(FPB)的代码断点走硬件断点，清除不涉及改写 Flash，无需重新烧录；仅当断点数量超出硬件槽位而落到 Flash 软件断点、或使用模拟器(Simulator)时才需重新烧录恢复原指令。清理 .uvoptx 需 Keil 已关闭（否则被内存断点回写覆盖）。hard=True 走 BK * 之后会复核硬件断点单元(FPB)（fpb 字段）：Keil 的逻辑表干净了、硬件里还留着启用项时，本工具不会报 ok——那正是 J-Link 一直报 "two breakpoints at the same address" 的成因（error_code=breakpoint-residue，含 enabled_addrs 与 next_actions）。FPB 读不到时如实标 unavailable，不当成清干净。【参数】必填: 无；可选: include_uvoptx, hard 【调用示例】{} 【风险】高——不可逆：会改写目标 Flash/内存，或关闭/重启用户的 Keil 实例。执行前确认目标与工程正确。【参数别名】include_uvoptx ← uvoptx/with_uvoptx；hard ← force/hard_clear。规范名以上方【参数】行为准；未列出的参数名会被拒绝，不会静默忽略

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hard`	No
`include_uvoptx`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.8Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: the exact mechanism (sending BK by address), the irreversible risk of rewriting Flash/memory or closing/restarting Keil, the FPB residue check with error_code=breakpoint-residue, and the requirement that Keil be closed for .uvoptx cleanup. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but front-loaded: core behavior first, then conditions, risk, parameter details, and aliases. Each section earns its place, and the structured headers make the dense information navigable for an agent.

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?

For a destructive tool with two optional booleans and a complex hardware/Keil interaction, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, irreversible side effects, and parameter aliases. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable; nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it documents include_uvoptx as clearing Keil-persisted .uvoptx breakpoints, hard as enabling FPB verification after BK *, lists aliases, and warns that unlisted parameter names are rejected. This fully compensates for the silent schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '清除软件断点：清空本服务内部记录并逐个按确切地址发 BK', and distinguishes this all-breakpoints operation from sibling clear_breakpoint by the word '全部'. It also adds the optional .uvoptx cleanup target, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete conditions: include_uvoptx=True clears Keil-persisted breakpoints, clean .uvoptx requires Keil closed, and hard=True performs FPB verification after BK *. It also explains when reflashing is or is not needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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