set_function_prototypeSet a function's type signature by providing its address and full C declaration, enabling accurate decompilation and reverse engineering analysis.
Set function prototype (type signature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| prototype | Yes | Full C function declaration | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override | |
| function_address | Yes | Function start or internal address (hex or decimal) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. 'Set' implies a mutation, but there is no word on whether an existing prototype is overwritten, whether analysis is re-run afterwards, whether type inference is affected, or what errors occur on malformed declarations.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the one line says essentially what the name already says.
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?
This is a mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, where the description must therefore explain behavior, failure modes, and side effects. Instead it offers a six-word restatement, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 100%, with each of the four parameters documented in the schema (prototype as 'Full C function declaration', function_address as hex or decimal, plus timeout and instance_id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Set function prototype') with a small clarifying gloss ('type signature'). This makes the action understandable, but it does not distinguish it from nearby siblings like get_function_signature, make_signature_for_function, or rename_function beyond the obvious read/write split.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, no preconditions (e.g. the function must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as get_function_signature for reading the current prototype. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.