Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to t32-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to control TriCore/AURIX debug sessions, including workspace loading, target connection, flashing, run control, breakpoints, and reading variables, registers, memory, and call stacks via the UDE Object Model.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to connect to and control the IAR C-SPY debugger through MCP tools, supporting session lifecycle, run control, breakpoints, memory inspection, stack and locals viewing, disassembly, symbol lookup, and terminal I/O capture.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server bridging Lauterbach TRACE32 debuggers to AI agents for autonomous debugging, providing 47 tools for execution control, breakpoints, memory, registers, variables, and symbol inspection.
      100
      13
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to compile, debug, sample, and inspect MCU firmware through J-Link/pyOCD or a mock engine, including breakpoints, watchpoints, single-stepping, register access, and flash dump operations.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to debug embedded systems by providing a comprehensive interface for GDB operations across multiple architectures like ARM and x86. It supports remote debugging via gdbserver or QEMU, allowing for detailed inspection of memory, registers, stack frames, and variables.
      31
      -

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools have mostly distinct purposes: session lifecycle, command execution, expression evaluation, script running, window reading, target control, manual lookup, and async operation management. There is some conceptual overlap between command, script, evaluate, and run since all interact with the debugger, but the descriptions draw clear boundaries (e.g. use script for DO, read settings back with evaluate, use go not break to wait). An agent can reliably pick the right tool.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    There are recognizable prefix groups (session_status/session_open/session_close, operation_get/operation_cancel), but the remaining tools are bare verbs or nouns (command, evaluate, script, view, run, manual) with no consistent verb_noun pattern. The conventions are mixed, though all names are readable and unambiguous in context.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eleven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place: session management, core execution primitives, manual lookup, and async operation handling. The surface is neither bloated nor thin for a debugger-control server.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full session lifecycle (open/status/close), command and script execution, expression evaluation, window reading, target control (go/step/break), manual lookup, and async operation get/cancel. Minor gaps exist in dedicated breakpoint, memory-write, and register tools, but these are largely reachable through command, evaluate, and view, so no major dead ends remain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues