Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Adversarial REA

Adversarial REA

by Cultistsid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_headers

Extract architecture, entry point, and other binary header details from a target file to identify platform and execution metadata before deeper inspection.

Instructions

Extract binary headers (architecture, entry point, etc.)

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": "get_headers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only extraction and hints at returned fields, but says nothing about behavior on non-binary or truncated files, format support (PE/ELF/Mach-O), error modes, or that it mutates nothing.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is lean to the point of omitting useful detail, but that gap is judged under contextual completeness rather than penalized as padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only minimally sufficient. The 'etc.' leaves the returned header set vague, and there is no statement of supported binary formats, failure conditions, or how the result differs from a full analyze_binary run.

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% and the single parameter (target_path, 'Path to target binary') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, path-style, or file-type constraints beyond the schema's own wording, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (extract) and resource (binary headers) and gives concrete examples of the payload (architecture, entry point). An agent can tell it apart from get_sections or get_symbols by the header/metadata framing, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this versus analyze_binary, get_sections, or get_strings, and no stated prerequisites or conditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the lightweight metadata probe within a large binary-analysis toolset.

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