WebSex

websex_ropper

Run ropper to find ROP gadgets in binaries during authorized engagements. Supply argv tokens directly; executes without shell parsing and works from the selected engagement namespace.

Instructions

Run ropper from the WebSex binary toolkit. The container executes ropper 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 burden, and it does disclose meaningful execution behavior: argv tokens are passed directly and shell parsing is never used, and it runs within the engagement namespace. It does not state permissions, resource intensity, or what the analysis produces beyond what the output schema covers.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Slightly more operational detail than strictly needed, but every sentence is relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with zero annotation coverage, fully undocumented parameters, and a terse description that never explains what ropper is for, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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% for four parameters. The description partially compensates for 'arguments' (supplied as argv tokens) and 'working_directory' (relative paths for engagement artifacts), but says nothing about 'engagement_id' or 'stdin', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run ropper from the WebSex binary toolkit.' An agent knows it invokes the ropper binary. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings websex_ropgadget and websex_one_gadget, which are also gadget-finding tools, so routing among them is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative gadget tools (ropgadget, one_gadget). The only usage hints are operational ('runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths'), which describe execution context rather than tool selection.

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

Deploy Server