re-angr
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_angrA | Return angr-cli + angr package version + Python import probe. Reports Status is |
| build_cfgA | Build a control-flow graph of path (optionally one function). Args:
path: PE / ELF / MachO to analyze
function: optional function name (e.g. Returns:: The CFG is the first thing an analyst needs for VM detection (high incoming-edge count on a single block = dispatcher candidate) and for binary comprehension in general. |
| symbolic_execA | Run angr symbolic execution starting at address. Args:
path: PE / ELF / MachO to analyze
address: entry point as a hex string (e.g. Returns:: The output is a partial trace — angr explores until either all paths are explored or the timeout is hit. The result is useful for cross-validation: "angr and Triton both find this MBA identity holds" is a much stronger signal than either alone. |
| reaching_definitionsA | Compute the reaching-definitions graph for function. A reaching definition is "where was the value used at instruction X defined?" angr computes the dataflow analysis statically. The output is a def-use graph: every variable gets a list of definitions; every instruction that reads a variable gets the list of definitions that may reach it. Useful for the Args:
path: PE / ELF / MachO
function: function name (e.g. Returns:: |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct binary analysis operation: CFG construction, installation verification, dataflow analysis, and symbolic execution. There is no overlap in their purposes or outputs.
All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix verb_noun (build_cfg, check_angr) with noun_phrase patterns (reaching_definitions), leading to minor inconsistency.
Four tools cover a focused set of angr-based analyses, each earning its place. The count feels appropriate for a specialized server, though slightly limited for broader reverse engineering tasks.
The set covers CFG, dataflow, and symbolic execution but lacks fundamental operations like disassembly or function enumeration, which may force agents to rely on external tools for basic analysis.