survey_binaryGet a high-level overview of binary metadata, entity counts, segments, and entry points to assess structure and plan reverse engineering tasks.
High-level binary overview: metadata, entity counts, segments, entry points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is clearly a read operation, but the description says nothing about cost, whether it triggers analysis, permissions, or what volume of output to expect from a whole-binary survey.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the list of returned content is placed immediately after the summary claim. It is terse but every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the shape of the result and how it relates to the piecewise sibling tools. It lists the covered domains but leaves the agent unable to judge scope or output size.
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 coverage is 100% (both timeout and instance_id are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no interpretation of these parameters, and correctly so, since the schema already handles them.
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?
It states a specific resource and enumerates the content covered (metadata, entity counts, segments, entry points), so an agent knows what it returns. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_metadata, list_segments or get_entry_points, which cover the same ground piecewise.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when the aggregate overview is preferable to the individual sibling calls, and no prerequisites stated. The word 'High-level' implies a summary use case but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.