Dump a byte window from a file as hex and ASCII, with offset and length options; negative offsets read from the end for binary inspection.
Hex + ASCII dump of a byte window (like hexdump -C). offset may be
negative to read from the end of the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| length | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: it names the output format and the non-obvious negative-offset 'read from end' behavior. It omits what happens at/after EOF, whether huge windows are truncated, and any permission constraints.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the format and then the offset quirk, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, given 0% schema coverage and absent annotations, the description is thin on path/length meaning and safety/output-size context for a filesystem-reading tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies offset's negative semantics well, but `path` and `length` (with its default of 256) are documented nowhere, leaving two of three parameters without meaning.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Hex + ASCII dump of a byte window') and reinforces it with a concrete reference format ('like `hexdump -C`'), so an agent understands exactly what it produces. It separates itself from string/code siblings by emphasizing raw bytes, but does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.
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 when-to-use framing or alternatives are given; the agent must infer that this is for low-level byte inspection versus extract_strings or disassemble. Usage is only implied by the format analogy, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.