WebSex

websex_objdump

Run objdump on binary files within a scoped engagement namespace to disassemble code and inspect headers for authorized security analysis.

Instructions

Run objdump from the WebSex binary toolkit. The container executes objdump directly with the supplied argv tokens; shell parsing is never used. Runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`stdin`	No
`arguments`	Yes
`engagement_id`	Yes
`working_directory`	No	.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses that objdump is executed directly with argv tokens and that shell parsing is never used, plus the engagement namespace context. However, it omits safety profile, whether the operation is read-only or destructive, permission requirements, and rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds operational context without filler, though it could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. It gives enough execution context for a simple wrapper, but it leaves parameter semantics incomplete and gives no alternative-tool routing, making it only adequately complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only partially helps: 'argv tokens' clarifies the arguments array, 'selected engagement namespace' implies engagement_id, and 'relative paths' relates to working_directory. The stdin parameter is entirely unaddressed and the expected argument format is not described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific executable (objdump) and its toolkit (WebSex binary toolkit), so an agent can identify the action and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling binary analysis tools such as ghidra, radare2, or ropper, but 'Run objdump' is still clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides operational context about engagement namespaces and relative paths, but it never states when to use objdump rather than alternatives like ghidra, radare2, or strings. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server