Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Adversarial REA

Adversarial REA

by Cultistsid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_sections

Lists binary sections with their sizes and attributes across ELF, Mach-O, PE, APK, IPA, ASAR, WebAssembly, and firmware targets to support inspection and attack-surface mapping.

Instructions

List binary sections with sizes and attributes

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_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_pathYesPath to target binary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not do much with it. 'List' implies a read operation and the phrase 'with sizes and attributes' hints at return content, but there is no disclosure of error behavior for invalid paths, permissions, output volume, or whether sections are limited to a particular binary format.

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 compact sentence of seven words with zero filler, and the resource and return content are front-loaded. There is no structural waste—the only shortfall is that the content is thin for the tool's behavioral surface.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, knowing that it lists sections with sizes and attributes is roughly sufficient to call it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could reasonably say more about result shape, binary-format expectations, or failure modes.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains target_path fully. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('binary sections') and adds what is returned ('sizes and attributes'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_symbols, get_strings, and disassemble, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the concept of listing sections, so a agent must infer that this is the tool for section-level layout rather than symbols, strings, or headers.

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