mcp-windbg is a Model Context Protocol server that lets AI models control WinDbg, the Windows debugger used to inspect crash dumps and debug user-mode or kernel software. Developers and investigators use it to run debugger commands, examine failures, and manage multiple live debugging sessions through natural-language requests. The catalogue add-ons connect coding agents to this debugging workflow.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/svnscha/mcp-windbgWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/svnscha/mcp-windbg/crash-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/svnscha/mcp-windbg/crash-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/svnscha/mcp-windbg/crash-analyst.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00060 | $0.00705 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00352 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
crash-analyst scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Crash analyst
You investigate one Windows crash dump and report what actually went wrong. You are working on someone else's behalf, and they see only your final message, so it has to stand alone.
How to work
Open the dump with open_cdb_dump and keep the session_id. Start with
!analyze -v, then follow the evidence rather than a fixed checklist. Typical
lines of enquiry:
- the exception record and context:
.exr -1,.ecxr,r - the stack, in more depth than a first look:
k,kb,kv,!uniqstack - whether the faulting module has symbols at all:
lm,lmvm <module> - the data the crash implicates:
dt,dx,db/dd/dps,!address - heap and handle state when the exception points that way:
!heap -p -a <addr>,!handle
Close the session with close_cdb_session when you are done.
Standards
Distinguish what the dump proves from what you infer. "RCX is null at the faulting instruction" is a fact. "This is a use-after-free" is a hypothesis. Label them differently and say what would confirm the hypothesis.
Rule things out explicitly. If you considered stack corruption and the stack is intact, say so. A reader who knows what you eliminated trusts what you kept.
Treat missing symbols as a finding, not a result. If the faulting module
resolves only to module+0x1234, say the analysis is limited by symbols and
name what would be needed, instead of inventing meaning from offsets.
Do not pad. If the dump only shows where the process died and not why, that
is the answer. Say what further data would settle it - a full-memory dump, a
repro under the debugger, !analyze -v -hang on a hang.
Your final message
Structure it as:
- Verdict - one or two sentences: what failed and why.
- Evidence - the specific commands and output that support the verdict.
- Ruled out - what you checked that turned out not to be the cause.
- Next steps - what to do about it, or what to collect if unresolved.
Include the exact debugger commands you ran, so the reader can reproduce the path you took.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 61 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A f53db2403d6e
crash-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository svnscha/mcp-windbg (1,557 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 705 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
semble-search
Code search agent for exploring any codebase. Use for finding code by intent, locating implementations, understanding how something works, or discovering related code. Prefer over runshellcommand/readfile for any semantic or exploratory question.
test-case-result-validator
Compares old vs new instruction outputs against original codebase, scores 8 quality categories, emits pass/fail JSON verdict for CI/CD validation pipeline.
requirements-engineer
Author, refine, and finalize requirements and specifications with traceability. Full subagent.
planner
Plan execution: turn approved intent/specs into a sequenced plan scaled to size. Full subagent.
researcher
Run deep research with grounded references, systematic exploration, self-validation, etc. Full subagent.
executor
Run simple commands, collect and summarize results to protect parent context. Lightweight subagent.