Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Adversarial REA

Adversarial REA

by Cultistsid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

disassemble

Convert binary or a chosen function into readable assembly to inspect instructions and analyze attack surface.

Instructions

Disassemble binary or specific function

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target_path": "<target_path>"
    },
    "name": "disassemble"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax lines of output
functionNoSpecific function to disassemble
target_pathYesPath to target binary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose read-only safety, permission requirements, output truncation behavior tied to limit, or what the disassembly output looks like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though it is closer to a label than a fully structured instruction.

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?

For a three-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains the core action, yet omits output expectations and selection guidance against related tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents target_path, function, and limit. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter definitions, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: disassemble a binary or a specific function. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as analyze_binary or trace_calls.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling-tool routing cues.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools